MA Gun Grab 2024: H.4885 - Passed legislature, headed to the governor

[Joeldiaz]

Status of cases and requests for Cert in the 3rd, 7th, and 9th circuits. Add to that the cases in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd.
The number of cases and disposition of cases GVR'd under Bruen that have simply gone off the reservation with findings virtually identical to those that SCOTUS rejected in the original GVR.

Magazine bans are much less of a political hot potato so are more likely to be addressed first with an order to look at AWB cases in light of any magazine ban findings.

I disagree, I think SCOTUS will want to deal with assault weapons before magazines. Magazines have an added layer of whether or not they’re considered “arms” (they obviously are). Assault weapons are indisputably arms.

 

[pastera]

I disagree, I think SCOTUS will want to deal with assault weapons before magazines. Magazines have an added layer of whether or not they’re considered “arms” (they obviously are). Assault weapons are indisputably arms.

Heller:

Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

Bruen:

We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances: Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. “Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted).Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of “arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. Cf. Caetano v. Massachusetts,577 U. S. 411, 411–412 (2016) (per curiam) (stun guns).

Instrument:

a tool or other device, especially one without electrical power, used for performing a particular piece of work:​

IMPLEMENT (a device used in the performance of a task : TOOL, UTENSIL)​

​

especially : one designed for precision work​

Is there any question that a magazine is an instrument or implement for the feeding of cartridges into the chamber of a firearm?
No, therefore per Heller, and as amplified by Caetano and Bruen, a magazine is an arm for the purposes of the 2nd amendment's protections.

My order may be reversed but I believe that magazine limits will reach a final opinion in the lower courts before the AWB cases and therefore will overcome the hesitancy of SCOTUS to take a case on interlocutory appeal.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

I disagree, I think SCOTUS will want to deal with assault weapons before magazines. Magazines have an added layer of whether or not they’re considered “arms” (they obviously are). Assault weapons are indisputably arms.

SCOTUS dealt with something very similar to 2A but dealing with 1A when states tried to tax the ink in printing presses and the printers claimed that their free speech was being violated and they won. So there is a similar analogy to the gun/magazine argument since the gun is useless without the magazine in the same way that the printing press is rendered useless without ink.

 

[Agnotology]

If we don't get grandfathering short term, anyone with a post Maura edict gun risks becoming a prohibited person by means of violating the AWB.

That is a very real concern, and while every line is an infringement on rights, they can force it through with their majority and turn us all into felons with or without our tacit approval.

Just like any person who caught a charge in the last 50 years for possession of marijuana, it being 'illegal' then means everything despite it being 'legal' now.

It isn't me saying 'grand fathering makes the bill OK'. It's that without it, we will all become prohibited persons while we wait for SCOTUS to look at the case, if they look at the case.

 

[MFSP101]

They are not worried

View attachment 862823

Is Swift still a gov employee? Don’t know the one in the middle and Dimples. Were they given these outfits as gifts? Did they buy them. Any ethics violations promoting Dunks?

 

[CATI]

Is Swift still a gov employee? Don’t know the one in the middle and Dimples. Were they given these outfits as gifts? Did they buy them. Any ethics violations promoting Dunks?

Need to have ethics in the beginning to violate them

 

[CMEBoston]

If we don't get grandfathering short term, anyone with a post Maura edict gun risks becoming a prohibited person by means of violating the AWB.

That is a very real concern, and while every line is an infringement on rights, they can force it through with their majority and turn us all into felons with or without our tacit approval.

Just like any person who caught a charge in the last 50 years for possession of marijuana, it being 'illegal' then means everything despite it being 'legal' now.

It isn't me saying 'grand fathering makes the bill OK'. It's that without it, we will all become prohibited persons while we wait for SCOTUS to look at the case, if they look at the case.

I personally don’t care, when I’m finally a felon I’ll be free-r than I’ve ever been

 

[Joeldiaz]

SCOTUS dealt with something very similar to 2A but dealing with 1A when states tried to tax the ink in printing presses and the printers claimed that their free speech was being violated and they won. So there is a similar analogy to the gun/magazine argument since the gun is useless without the magazine in the same way that the printing press is rendered useless without ink.

Yes I know that and the case you’re referring to. SCOTUS has said in the case of Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner that it’s unconstitutional to tax constitutionally protected items. That case specifically dealt with a use tax on paper and ink in the state of Minnesota. That tax impacted the 1A guarantee of freedom of the press. Logic would dictate that the same reasoning would apply to the 2A items.

My comment didn’t mean to imply that there isn’t already case law on this stuff. I meant to imply that there is already feigned ignorance on the subject by lower courts so SCOTUS will probably want to deal with the easier thing to get courts to acknowledge first.

 

[Joeldiaz]

Heller:


Bruen:

Instrument:

a tool or other device, especially one without electrical power, used for performing a particular piece of work:​

IMPLEMENT (a device used in the performance of a task : TOOL, UTENSIL)​

​

especially : one designed for precision work​

Is there any question that a magazine is an instrument or implement for the feeding of cartridges into the chamber of a firearm?
No, therefore per Heller, and as amplified by Caetano and Bruen, a magazine is an arm for the purposes of the 2nd amendment's protections.

My order may be reversed but I believe that magazine limits will reach a final opinion in the lower courts before the AWB cases and therefore will overcome the hesitancy of SCOTUS to take a case on interlocutory appeal.

I’m aware of the argument of how magazines are “arms”. My comment wasn’t about SCOTUS not speaking on the subject, it was about which one would be easier to get lower courts to understand and fall in line with.

I’m still holding out hope that SCOTUS hears the Bianchi v. Brown case pending before them for cert. I know chances aren’t great, but one can hope. If they don’t, then I’ll be inclined to agree that mags will reach SCOTUS before assault weapons.

 

[pastera]

I’m aware of the argument of how magazines are “arms”. My comment wasn’t about SCOTUS not speaking on the subject, it was about which one would be easier to get lower courts to understand and fall in line with.

I’m still holding out hope that SCOTUS hears the Bianchi v. Brown case pending before them for cert. I know chances aren’t great, but one can hope. If they don’t, then I’ll be inclined to agree that mags will reach SCOTUS before assault weapons.

My thought is because the AWB cases in the 4th and 7th cross reference each other SCOTUS will wait for both to be decided before granting cert to either.
Given that magazine capacity is less of a hot button political issue I can see the more politically minded justices going for the lesser of evils and writing a slightly broader opinion that can effect the AWB cases.
That way they rule on the easy one and GVR yet again hoping the shitty communist lower courts finally get it right without them getting their hands dirty.

 

[Reptile]

If we don't get grandfathering short term, anyone with a post Maura edict gun risks becoming a prohibited person by means of violating the AWB.

Are you saying a Pre Maura edict gun is a get out of jail free gun?

Because that is what is sounds like you are saying.

 

[Coyote33]

AWB cases in the 4th and 7th

Speaking of the 7th, ...

The National Police Association tells Supreme Court the 7th Circuit's Decision Against the Second Amendment Creates Physical and Civil Risks for Police

/PRNewswire/ -- On Wednesday, March 13, 2024, the National Police Association ("NPA") filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of the...

www.prnewswire.com

 

[pastera]

Speaking of the 7th, ...

The National Police Association tells Supreme Court the 7th Circuit's Decision Against the Second Amendment Creates Physical and Civil Risks for Police

/PRNewswire/ -- On Wednesday, March 13, 2024, the National Police Association ("NPA") filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court in support of the...

www.prnewswire.com

Not to be a dupe nazi but that was posted in #4243

Great brief that deserves more than one mention

Edit: since I'm an idiot I gave the wrong post number for the "dupe"

MA Gun Grab 2024: Senate bill S.2572

Thanks for the advice. I have edited the description of my ad. It still says Pre Healey - but I have included that may not mean anything. Some folks like me still like Pre Healey lowers and those folks are my potential customers. If you can suggest any other edits - I'll consider. I think...

www.northeastshooters.com

 

[pastera]

If we don't get grandfathering short term, anyone with a post Maura edict gun risks becoming a prohibited person by means of violating the AWB.

That is a very real concern, and while every line is an infringement on rights, they can force it through with their majority and turn us all into felons with or without our tacit approval.

Just like any person who caught a charge in the last 50 years for possession of marijuana, it being 'illegal' then means everything despite it being 'legal' now.

It isn't me saying 'grand fathering makes the bill OK'. It's that without it, we will all become prohibited persons while we wait for SCOTUS to look at the case, if they look at the case.

If there is any grandfathering it won't go past 2016 (and very likely won't be anything except pre federal awb) that still leaves 6 years of purchases putting owners at risk.
But if own only owns the magic pixie dust, unicorn farting Reptile lowers then that's someone else's problem.

Lack of grandfathering places a request for injunction for all current at a very likely to be granted.
If there is even a partial grandfathering the likelihood of an injunction against the AWB update is highly unlikely.
So for those wanting grandfathering know that you are placing newcomers at higher risk in order to gain some temporary security.

 

[Horatio Alger Jr]

If there is any grandfathering it won't go past 2016 (and very likely won't be anything except pre federal awb) that still leaves 6 years of purchases putting owners at risk.
But if own only owns the magic pixie dust, unicorn farting Reptile lowers then that's someone else's problem.

Lack of grandfathering places a request for injunction for all current at a very likely to be granted.
If there is even a partial grandfathering the likelihood of an injunction against the AWB update is highly unlikely.
So for those wanting grandfathering know that you are placing newcomers at higher risk in order to gain some temporary security.

Why would a injuction be granted for no grandfathering but a injuction would not be granted for a partial garndfathering.

The actual law did not change.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with grandfathering. I am just trying to get my little brain to understand.

 

[oldguy68]

For anyone sh_tting their pants over this.
We the citizens of the commonwealth purchased these arms according to laws at the time of purchase.
We and the FFL's followed the laws as understood at the time of the transaction.
It's our legal property to do as we see fit with said property as long as it is legal by our laws.
One can destroy or modify said items as you see fit. As long as we follow the laws according to said items.
They come for said items and we say we destroyed said items as we have free will to do so and then they have to prove us otherwise.
Just as they did at Barrett's farm in Lexington.

History..Funny how it works...

 

[not new guy]

They’re going to say Maura merely interpreted the law for all of us in 2016.

 

[oldguy68]

And I'm going to ask the definition of infringed..
Any proper lawyer should understand that simple meaning..

 

[Waher]

And I'm going to ask the definition of infringed..
Any proper lawyer should understand that simple meaning..

And commies will say, "That's cute now kneel before the ditch and stand up against the wall already"

Didn't you proudly vote for Biden anyway?

 

[oldguy68]

Not if I shoot them first!

 

[Joeldiaz]

And I'm going to ask the definition of infringed..
Any proper lawyer should understand that simple meaning..

Funny enough, SCOTUS has actually never defined the word “infringed” in the 2A context. However, that’s not a big deal because we can look at the same sources they used to define all of the other words in the 2A. If we look there, infringed means “to destroy or hinder.”

 

[VTski4x4]

Not if I shoot them first!

After that happens a few times, all but the dumbest of jackboots will think twice before ringing door bells.

 

[oldguy68]

Come for my family and I will come for yours..

 

[TJ4]

They are not worried

View attachment 862823

How much do you want to bet that they paid for those suits with taxpayer money?

 

[oldguy68]

I just want to be left alone.

 

[Da_lucche]

That’s the problem with “Don’t comply”, “Go about your daily life“.

It’s all well and good until you have a medical emergency, red flag, yellow flag, divorce, break in, or car accident and the man enters your life uninvited and bends you over.

Everyone’s risk tolerance is different.

Idk man. I stopped complying and stopped giving a shit way before Healey's 7/2016 edict. This is coming from someone who has a heart condition, lived in majority of his life in Newton, people knew i didn't hold the same ideals as the majority of that city, even the schools and I also went through the a tough break up. I didn't flaunt it but I still didn't give a shit. YMMV.

 

[Junior314]

I can see why it seems doom and gloom from my perspective. This is why I keep pushing people to vote because I do still believe there is a chance. At our current pace, I can honestly say that I believe doom and gloom is what we got coming if we as individuals don't step up. We can't depend on judges going forward to uphold the constitution.

I admire your misplaced optimism.

If we don't get grandfathering short term, anyone with a post Maura edict gun risks becoming a prohibited person by means of violating the AWB.

That is a very real concern, and while every line is an infringement on rights, they can force it through with their majority and turn us all into felons with or without our tacit approval.

Just like any person who caught a charge in the last 50 years for possession of marijuana, it being 'illegal' then means everything despite it being 'legal' now.

It isn't me saying 'grand fathering makes the bill OK'. It's that without it, we will all become prohibited persons while we wait for SCOTUS to look at the case, if they look at the case.

Just accept the fact that your already a felon in waiting and move on in life. I posted a shorter version of this quote earlier in this thread.

"What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few—as we have learned to our sorrow.

—Learned Hand

 

[pastera]

Why would a injuction be granted for no grandfathering but a injuction would not be granted for a partial garndfathering.

The actual law did not change.

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with grandfathering. I am just trying to get my little brain to understand.

I went over it before
The grandfathering of the senate bill allows the state to claim that people were given advanced notice the there was no legal method to cause a ln AR/AK platform rifle to be compliant in 2016 but denied prosecution of those that had purchased these "illegal" AW in good faith from dealers.
That is how they will argue that this is not an ex post facto law but simply a clerical clarification that makes the lawclear to all. And that argument will pass all state, district and 1st circuit courts.

However lack of any grandfathering removes the bogus argument that the Healy declaration was actually the correct interpretation of the law and therefore fair notice to those aggrieved.

I hate my phone - I type the right words and it substitutes nonsense in for me.

 

[chris_1001]

Thanks to those that want to help without trying to fund their retirement therapy.

And I'm going to ask the definition of infringed..
Any proper lawyer should understand that simple meaning..

Ask them about the meaning of “shall not” while you are at it.

I hate my phone - I type the right words and it substitutes nonsense in for me.

Duck? Ducking? Ducked?

 

[71montess]

I went over it before
The grandfathering of the senate bill allows the state to claim that people were given advanced notice the there was no legal method to cause a ln AR/AK platform rifle to be compliant in 2016 but denied prosecution of those that had purchased these "illegal" AW in good faith from dealers.
That is how they will argue that this is not an ex post facto law but simply a clerical clarification that makes the lawclear to all. And that argument will pass all state, district and 1st circuit courts.

However lack of any grandfathering removes the bogus argument that the Healy declaration was actually the correct interpretation of the law and therefore fair notice to those aggrieved.

I hate my phone - I type the right words and it substitutes nonsense in for me.

I would argue the fact you can “register”an AR 15 in the portal , even today as a goverment approval.