The Conference Committee has sent official language out - h.4885

[VTski4x4]

You misunderstand me. Political violence is the absolutely wrong path--and (we can completely agree) totally counter-productive.

As a law-abiding person I am advocating for both obeying the law AND lawfully resisting the law, and I'm not sure how you arrived at a different conclusion.

I am talking about finding creative ideas for non-violent resistance--but my main point here is that passive-aggressive lawlessness (of the sort which seems to be widely advocated here--am I wrong?) is a dysfunctional solution to the problem AND it pacifies and dissipates the anger/energy which needs to be harnessed to create a passionate, legal, grass-roots resistance.

You ask ME to provide NES for gestures of resistance? A crew wearing bright yellow Come And Take Them t-shirts and shitting on lawmakers from the gallery balcony came to mind, but only in jest. I am not a skilled strategist, and besides, shouldn't those ideas come from the existing 2A leadership? Or are they tapped out beyond "let's get 200 of us together on a random Saturday on the common and hold 2A signs to voice our outrage and accomplish nothing"?

Mull my perspective or don't. In the wake of the AG's legislation-by-press-conference I advocated for all lawful citizens to FA-10 their builds, because presumably they are lawful individuals, and (right or wrong) it is my perception that it was what the law required. By making that decision, those rifles are now unquestionably legal to both own and transfer, I cannot be punished for having them in my possession, and so far nobody has shot my dog or come to take my guns. Might there come a day when they use that information against me, and try to seize my firearms? Sure. Someday it might. But in the meantime I have denied them of an easy get to ass-rape me with fines or incarcerate me (and rightfully) under the authority of law.

That's my .02, for whatever it is worth to you.

Assuming you believe GOAL, advocating anyone to build and then FA10 a (post 2016) rifle right now would make them felons.

 

[Warm_Garand]

Assuming you believe GOAL, advocating anyone to build and then FA10 a (post 2016) rifle right now would make them felons.

Ok. So apparently I am a felon. I did what I thought the State asked me to do--with my lawfully-owned property.

Now it is the State's move.

Ask me if I am afraid.

 

[VTski4x4]

Ok. So apparently I am a felon. I did what I thouhgt the State asked me to do.

Now it is the State's move.

Ask me if I am afraid.

You are afraid. If Maura offers forgiveness if you turn in those "illegal" guns, you will line up to do so.

 

[bfm]

Translation: "We should resist! I don't like how everyone else is suggesting we resist, and I don't have a clue how we should resist either! Other people should come up with those ideas. So instead, I'll abide by the law!"

Lordy. I've mulled your perspective, and it sucks. We don't need you.

I was planning to resist by setting up bot farms to send pro 2A meme's to anyone who helped pass 4885 24/7.

Fight the Power!!

 

[Picton]

I was planning to resist by setting up bot farms to send pro 2A meme's to anyone who helped pass 4885 24/7.

Fight the Power!!

Whoah, whoah whoah. Don't go getting any ideas.

shouldn't those ideas come from the existing 2A leadership?

We're not allowed to resist on our own. Didn't you know that?

 

[Warm_Garand]

You are afraid. If Maura offers forgiveness if you turn in those "illegal" guns, you will line up to do so.

In what way does the gun (or surrendering a particular gun) even matter. You think I can't get an illegal gun any time I want to? All I'd have to do is want to. The problem in creating and sustaining resistance movements isn't finding weapons. It is finding people with actual backbone, and a will to resist.

 

[bfm]

Whoah, whoah whoah. Don't go getting any ideas.

I think I just invented Twitter!

 

[Picton]

In what way does the gun (or surrendering a particular gun) even matter. The problem in creating and sustaining resistance movements isn't finding weapons. It is finding people with actual backbone, and a will to resist.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Basically if you look at the layers this will need to go through before it hits the SC I would suspect it’ll be longer than a few months. Say a month or two before it hits the first circuit and the wait for the decision.

Given that the SC can issue injunctions I have been wondering if it would be worth it to write the SC judges directly with a carefully considered letter highlighting how grossly unconstitutional these laws are.

Focusing on things like:
The taking of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns from FID and under 21.
The shutting down of issuing licenses.
The shutting down of selling long guns on 10/23
The state deliberate taking of your weapons and selling them at the 1 year mark. Remember there is a temporary ERPO, harassment, and restraining order before the the order is issued for 1 year. This makes it impossible to retrieve your property as it is up for sale at the 1 year point.

We could even include the article where the state that these new laws are in response to the Bruen decision.

 

[Warm_Garand]

View attachment 905929

OK, hero. You guys keep doing what you're doing. And the next time I see 200 of you tards standing around holding signs on the common I will be sure to honk and wave as I drive past.

 

[kevin9]

I was going to ask, or maybe start a poll, who is going to register all their stuff as soon as they can. Don't think I need to: It's becoming pretty obvious.

2(+?) vs <total NES membership - 2?>

 

[Picton]

OK, hero. You guys keep doing what you're doing. And the next time I see 200 of you tards standing around holding signs on the common I will be sure to honk and wave as I drive past.

Lol. There's a thread for that, too. Go read it; I've been active there as well.

I think that idea is as stupid as yours is. But keep assuming.

 

[Rockrivr1]

Given that the SC can issue injunctions I have been wondering if it would be worth it to write the SC judges directly with a carefully considered letter highlighting how grossly unconstitutional these laws are.

Focusing on things like:
The taking of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns from FID and under 21.
The shutting down of issuing licenses.
The shutting down of selling long guns on 10/23
The state deliberate taking of your weapons and selling them at the 1 year mark. Remember there is a temporary ERPO, harassment, and restraining order before the the order is issued for 1 year. This makes it impossible to retrieve your property as it is up for sale at the 1 year point.

We could even include the article where the state that these new laws are in response to the Bruen decision.

Best chance there is to write to Thomas. He heavily supports 2A and if anyone is going to lead an injunction it's going to be him.

 

[Picton]

Given that the SC can issue injunctions I have been wondering if it would be worth it to write the SC judges directly with a carefully considered letter highlighting how grossly unconstitutional these laws are.

Focusing on things like:
The taking of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns from FID and under 21.
The shutting down of issuing licenses.
The shutting down of selling long guns on 10/23
The state deliberate taking of your weapons and selling them at the 1 year mark. Remember there is a temporary ERPO, harassment, and restraining order before the the order is issued for 1 year. This makes it impossible to retrieve your property as it is up for sale at the 1 year point.

We could even include the article where the state that these new laws are in response to the Bruen decision.

In general, I do not want a SCOTUS that is eager to reach out and slap injunctions on state issues, just as a philosophy. They seem to agree with me; SCOTUS is not eager to use that kind of power, preferring to let the lower courts have their say first. I support that idea.

This is one of those times when what I want, in the short term, collides with the way I want "the system" to work overall. It's a PITA.

 

[VTski4x4]

Best chance there is to write to Thomas. He heavily supports 2A and if anyone is going to lead an injunction it's going to be him.

And he's open to bribes, or so the left says

 

[HorizontalHunter]

In general, I do not want a SCOTUS that is eager to reach out and slap injunctions on state issues, just as a philosophy. They seem to agree with me; SCOTUS is not eager to use that kind of power, preferring to let the lower courts have their say first. I support that idea.

This is one of those times when what I want, in the short term, collides with the way I want "the system" to work overall. It's a PITA.

While I agree. I am so fuking frustrated at this blatantly unconstitutional piece of crap revenge legislation.

ETA:

I know that I’m not alone and preaching to the choir.

 

[Foudre]

While I agree. I am so fuking frustrated at this blatantly unconstitutional piece of crap revenge legislation.

That's what happens when you have karen politicians who are in the government, they have to try and drag everyone else into the mud with them by once again trying to attack a constitutional right, like the unqualified, arrogant, criminal politicians they are.

 

[Picton]

While I agree. I am so fuking frustrated at this blatantly unconstitutional piece of crap revenge legislation.

ETA:

I know that I’m not alone and preaching to the choir.

It's okay. We'll win, as long as we have... what was it?... "a backbone and a will to resist."

Some of us do. Most of us, I hope.

 

[VTski4x4]

It's okay. We'll win, as long as we have... what was it?... "a backbone and a will to resist."

Some of us do. Most of us, I hope.

Notice how he says he can get an illegal gun anytime he wants, while ignoring the fact that his guns are already illegal according to GOAL? He's petrified of that being true, because then he'd just be another "law breaking lowlife" that he looks down on. This is getting good.

 

[Jenska22]

You misunderstand me. Political violence is the absolutely wrong path--and (we can completely agree) totally counter-productive.

As a law-abiding person I am advocating for both obeying the law AND lawfully resisting the law, and I'm not sure how you arrived at a different conclusion.

I am talking about finding creative ideas for non-violent resistance--but my main point here is that passive-aggressive lawlessness (of the sort which seems to be widely advocated here--am I wrong?) is a dysfunctional solution to the problem AND it pacifies and dissipates the anger/energy which needs to be harnessed to create a passionate, legal, grass-roots resistance.

You ask ME to provide NES for gestures of resistance? A crew wearing bright yellow Come And Take Them t-shirts and shitting on lawmakers from the gallery balcony came to mind, but only in jest. I am not a skilled strategist, and besides, shouldn't those ideas come from the existing 2A leadership? Or are they tapped out beyond "let's get 200 of us together on a random Saturday on the common and hold 2A signs to voice our outrage and accomplish nothing"?

Mull my perspective or don't. In the wake of the AG's legislation-by-press-conference I advocated for all lawful citizens to FA-10 their builds, because presumably they are lawful individuals, and (right or wrong) it is my perception that it was what the law required. By making that decision, those rifles are now unquestionably legal to both own and transfer, I cannot be punished for having them in my possession, and so far nobody has shot my dog or come to take my guns. Might there come a day when they use that information against me, and try to seize my firearms? Sure. Someday it might. But in the meantime I have denied them of an easy get to ass-rape me with fines or incarcerate me (and rightfully) under the authority of law.

That's my .02, for whatever it is worth to you.

This is a 'brewsters millions' situation. Since many of us don't want to give up our privacy, someone who is already publicly committed could run for office as an independent for the House of Rep seat. Filing deadline is 8/27 or so and only 2000 signatures are needed. By doing so they might get some media air time and explain how the many inadequacies of this law, and what it will cost the people of the commonwealth in their wasted tax dollars (want really matters to them). In any case, newspaper ads could print those arguments under the guise of a platform, without ever really expecting to win.
I don't want to out myself in my neighborhood but will contribute to a campaign or publicity fund.

 

[Picton]

Notice how he says he can get an illegal gun anytime he wants, while ignoring the fact that his guns are already illegal according to GOAL? He's petrified of that being true, because then he'd just be another "law breaking lowlife" that he looks down on. This is getting good.

It really is. It's a popcorn moment.

 

[StevieP]

thread TLDR.

Has anyone yet suggested tar & feathers?

 

[mousegunfan]

Assuming you believe GOAL, advocating anyone to build and then FA10 a (post 2016) rifle right now would make them felons.

Goal should get their lips out of Maura's as*. This new bill can not retroactive enforce a law. The fact they made it a law is proof it never was valid to begin with.

 

[sbhaven]

In general, I do not want a SCOTUS that is eager to reach out and slap injunctions on state issues, just as a philosophy. They seem to agree with me; SCOTUS is not eager to use that kind of power, preferring to let the lower courts have their say first. I support that idea.

This is one of those times when what I want, in the short term, collides with the way I want "the system" to work overall. It's a PITA.

While in theory, SCOTUS waiting for the lower courts to finish batting around a case may seem the proper way things should work. The problem we have now is the lower courts, and Democrat/progressive legislators have changed the rules of game. The blue state legislators are throwing a lot of anti 2A stuff at the wall post Bruen forcing it all to be challenged. Those legislators know there is no punishment for their doing so. While at the same time the courts governing those blue states generally are playing games by not properly applying Bruen and are intentionally delaying the cases in hopes the makeup of SCOTUS changes. 2A could become a victim of SCOTUS playing by the old rules of the game. One would hope Thomas and others are cognizant of this game change and will adjust accordingly. So far it doesn't appear SCOTUS is adjusting to the new environment.

 

[508Guns&Ammo]

I'm hoping where they blatantly told the supreme Court they were wrong that scouts might tighten their grips and figure out how to punish the traitors.

 

[Picton]

While in theory, SCOTUS waiting for the lower courts to finish batting around a case may seem the proper way things should work. The problem we have now is the lower courts, and Democrat/progressive legislators have changed the rules of game. The blue state legislators are throwing a lot of anti 2A stuff at the wall post Bruen forcing it all to be challenged. Those legislators know there is no punishment for their doing so. While at the same time the courts governing those blue states generally are playing games by not properly applying Bruen and are intentionally delaying the cases in hopes the makeup of SCOTUS changes. 2A could become a victim of SCOTUS playing by the old rules of the game. One would hope Thomas and others are cognizant of this game change and will adjust accordingly. So far it doesn't appear SCOTUS is adjusting to the new environment.

That "new environment" is unlikely to be permanent, though.

Suppose we advocate for a structural change in which SCOTUS takes on a more activist local role now. In addition to enlarging the power of the federal government (which is bad) in a way that would undoubtedly be used in a repressive way a few decades into the future, the use of short-term "fixes" to address issues in long-term institutions like the Court is ill-advised. Progressives are advocating for the same thing when they want to pack the Court.

Our role is to pass on a useful country to our progeny, not necessarily just to make life better for ourselves. Some short-term solutions are not in the best interests of the Republic.

 

[PappyM3]

Assuming you believe GOAL, advocating anyone to build and then FA10 a (post 2016) rifle right now would make them felons.

I, for one, do not believe goal. I think they have serious misunderstandings of the law.

 

[2/1Marine]

I asked the AG for some clarification on the dates in the bill and the grandfathering provision. Recieved a response today.

"Thank you for reaching out to the community engagement division. Unfortunately, we cannot give legal advice on individual circumstances, but the new bill specifically exempts assault-style firearms lawfully possessed as of August 1, 2024. It would be expected that there will be a number of explainers coming out from various agencies before the law takes effect on October 23."

 

[VTski4x4]

I asked the AG for some clarification on the dates in the bill and the grandfathering provision. Recieved a response today.

"Thank you for reaching out to the community engagement division. Unfortunately, we cannot give legal advice on individual circumstances, but the new bill specifically exempts assault-style firearms lawfully possessed as of August 1, 2024. It would be expected that there will be a number of explainers coming out from various agencies before the law takes effect on October 23."

 

[Picton]

I asked the AG for some clarification on the dates in the bill and the grandfathering provision. Recieved a response today.

"Thank you for reaching out to the community engagement division. Unfortunately, we cannot give legal advice on individual circumstances, but the new bill specifically exempts assault-style firearms lawfully possessed as of August 1, 2024. It would be expected that there will be a number of explainers coming out from various agencies before the law takes effect on October 23."

Agencies such as the Attorney General's Office, say?

Maybe a series of queries arriving regularly from people seeking information would be a good clue that they should, I dunno, get off their asses and write an "explainer" or two?

They won't, though. They don't understand this bullshit any better than we do.