HARRYM
NES Member
I'll say it again, a Constitutional Right, ANY Constitutional right should never be the subject of a popularity vote or based on opinions.
-
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/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
The Conference Committee has sent official language out - h.4885
- Thread starter GOAL
- Start date
I'm not sure how the State would EVER know if two consenting adults exchange money for a magazine.
It's none of their business, either now or after August. Behave accordingly.
Just looking at through legal means.
"Legal" according to a corrupt and unconstitutional state law? Or "legal" according to common sense and the US constitution?
Those aren't always the same thing...
The state won't know if you're selling or buying mags, and even if they do, they won't do anything about it unless you're selling them by the pallet-load. They know full well how rickety this law is; it's far too shaky for them to get the whole thing thrown out by taking you to court over three or four AR mags.
At this point the Constitution at least in MA along with elected officials/LEO/judges Oath is a just a formality?
My window of sales is narrow around me so listing things for sale on open forums is my best bet. So some sort of legal ass covering maybe , IDK
HARRYM
NES Member
Massachusetts Constitution
malegislature.gov
Post a WTS magazine ad. Make sure all the pics in the ad are of National Geographics. If a few legally-owned gun parts happen to show up in the background of the pics, so be it.
I'm being serious.
JDL
NES Member
We will just have to watch out for the State Police Sting. Much easier then to go after real criminals. They can get that low hanging fruit to justify that they are doing there part keeping us hardend dangerious magazine selling/buying criminals off the streets. This will also reinforce that the need for this new law was needed to keep everyone safe with very graphically displays of sezesd magazines for there press conference.
That's why I mentioned the pallet-load.
Nobody in the NES classifieds is selling enough to justify setting up a sting to put together a seizure pic for a press release, especially a seizure pic that contains no guns.
There is a risk the state incurs by enforcing any part of this law. The gamble they're taking is that the defendant will suck for a plea instead of calling Neil Tassel. Because the state knows this law won't stand up to scrutiny once a civil-rights lawsuit gets filed.
So confusing why a a civil rights law suite is not on standby on all these crazy laws?
Ugh I remember the big talk of the day as a kid hanging around the club with my dad that “licensing” requirements where Unconstitutional
Standing.
The state doesn't necessarily violate your rights by passing a law. They violate your rights by enforcing that law.
Think about sodomy laws, which are still on the books in many places. Those laws never had a legitimate purpose, and many of them are only still in force because the legislature hasn't bothered repealing them. Now, suppose you get caught in the back of a car getting a blowie. They're not going to charge you under that law, and why? Because they're fully aware the law is stupid, and that a federal court won't let it stand if they try to prosecute you (in that case, there are other laws they might use to prosecute you, but those have better precedent).
This law is similar. You can sue once the state has infringed on your rights, not on the possibility that they might. Plenty of people in MA are already harmed by this new law, and they're the first ones in the chute legally. You're not harmed because the state MIGHT have an issue with you doing a mag sale; you're harmed if they actually DO have an issue with your mag sale.
IANAL, but that's my understanding.
Interesting juxtaposition.
Interesting juxtaposition.
Most sodomy laws include oral.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2016
- Messages
- 645
- Likes
- 900
Two questions about the voter referendum.
If the referendum gets the signatures and moves towards the 2026 ballot, does the 10/23/24 date still have any meaning at all?
Can the delay for the referendum just be overridden by the legislature? Can they just pass a law that says, "Nope, we're changing that rule." And we're making our change effective immediately, including for things that are in process.
If the referendum gets the signatures and moves towards the 2026 ballot, does the 10/23/24 date still have any meaning at all?
Can the delay for the referendum just be overridden by the legislature? Can they just pass a law that says, "Nope, we're changing that rule." And we're making our change effective immediately, including for things that are in process.
The next big step is those signatures, this can be made easier if people focus on "Getting it on the ballot" and not on what the law claims to do or actually does. Showing the bill as written would leave anyone shaking their head it's so confusing. You can't really tell what it does. Show this to prospective signers, mention the millions it's going to cost, and emphasize "Our legislatures can do better, we just need to sent it back so they will do the work".
But above all it's about letting the people chose.
I've seen other initiatives where those collecting signature take this approach and get a good response from those that disagree on the issues in favor of the "it's just to get it on the ballot".
Make this about guns and you will have a much harder time getting those signatures.
TG Pioneer
NES Member
Yes. Norton and Rehoboth, respectively. I’m still learning and only listening for now. @Coyote33 asked me to start a separate thread about our group and how we are going to use GMRS. I’m still gathering information. I’ll have something in a day or two.
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
Well it’s August 10th so….
Clear as day really. Here’s the current law in force:
Section 131M: Assault weapon or large capacity feeding device not lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994; sale, transfer or possession; punishment
Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.
And the new law which will replace it on 10/23:
Section 131. The issuance and possession of a license to carry firearms shall be subject to the following conditions and restrictions: (a) A license shall entitle a holder thereof of a license to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and carry firearms, including large capacity firearms and ammunition therefor. The license shall not entitle a holder thereof to transfer, possess or carry large capacity feeding devices or assault-style firearms unless such transfer, possession or carry is permitted under section 131M.
Section 131M. (a) No person shall possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer in the commonwealth or import into the commonwealth an assault-style firearm, or a large capacity feeding device.
(c) Subsection (a) shall not apply to large capacity feeding devices lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994 only if such possession is: (i) on private property owned or legally controlled by the person in possession of the large capacity feeding device; (ii) on private property that is not open to the public with the express permission of the property owner or the property owner’s authorized agent; (iii) while on the premises of a licensed firearms dealer or gunsmith for the purpose of lawful repair; (iv) at a licensed firing range or sports shooting competition venue; or (v) while traveling to and from these locations; provided, that the large capacity feeding device is stored unloaded and secured in a locked container in accordance with sections 131C and 131L. A person authorized under this subsection to possess a large capacity feeding device may only transfer the device to an heir or devisee, a person residing outside the commonwealth, or a licensed dealer.
HARRYM
NES Member
Assault style firearm..........geezzz.....I didn't realize they were that specific....................
EJFudd
NES Member
Adding the word "style" would seem to be an open admission by the anti-2A leftist pols that none of these guns are actually assault weapons.
It actually very specific in the new bill. ASF (assault style firearm) covers any semiautomatic firearm under the new definitions in Ch.140 Sec.121.
Any other gun whether rifle, shotgun, pistol, handgun, which operates with bolt, lever, pump, or a slide to close the action is now called……..FIREARM.
HARRYM
NES Member
So the Left back in the day creates assault weapon to create the demon to attack. Now its "style" is no good. Inch by inch.
HARRYM
NES Member
Doesn't the new bill contain "assault style" language?
I do know about the semi-automatic BS.
Yes, that new gun grabber term now encompasses any semiautomatic firearm that has 2 or more features which include:
1. Ability to take a detachable magazine
2. Pistol grip or thumbhole stock
3. Any hand guard, foregrip, and anything else that allows support for the non trigger hand
4. Any adjustable or telescopic stock
5. Threaded barrel
6. Any kind of barrel shroud that protects the hands or covers the barrel.
HARRYM
NES Member
Indeed......but "assault style" is open to interpretation and will be abused.
I would think we could use this as an advantage. It doesn’t need to be LTC holders. We could get anyone to sign it. So the general public can help get this on the ballet. Even if they don’t like guns.
The new bill allows the subjective addition or subtraction from the roster.
Section 131¾. (a) The secretary of public safety and security shall, with the advice of the firearm control advisory board established in section 131½ compile and publish a roster of assault-style firearms banned under section 131M and a roster of firearms approved for sale and use in the commonwealth using the parameters set forth in section 123. The secretary shall, not less than 3 times annually, review, update, and publish the rosters online, and send a copy to all persons licensed in the commonwealth pursuant to section 122. Licensing authorities shall provide information on these rosters to all permit and card holders and licensees upon initial issuance and every renewal.
(c) The secretary may amend any roster upon their own initiative. A person may petition the secretary to place a firearm on, or remove a firearm from, the roster, subject to the provisions of this section. A petition to amend a roster shall be submitted in writing to the secretary, in the form and manner prescribed by the secretary, and include reasons why the roster should be amended. Upon receipt of a petition to amend a roster, the secretary shall, within 45 days, either notify the petitioner that the petition is denied or modify the roster. An addition to the roster shall be effective on the date it is published online by the board.
EJFudd
NES Member
I don't recall LTC holder addresses being part of the infamous FRB data dump. Towns, yes... but not street addresses.
HARRYM
NES Member
Yup, look at the language...."firearm control advisory board" ........that's how stupid these morons are.....they are admitting it is firearms control. Assault style.....whose opinion?
It's so open ended that they can add anything they want.
The only thing that would have made me happier about this bill would have been a sentence stating to the effect that yes we hate ALL firearms and won't stop until we ban them all and take your Second Amendment and stick it up your arse.
And I don't mean I'm happy about the bill but happy that it is full of Constitutional, Heller and Bruen violations.
BUT.....remember.....none of it matters if Harris wins and the Dems hold the Senate.
HARRYM
NES Member
I'm sorry but I won't sign it. I WILL NOT ALLOW MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to be put to a vote like its a privilege subject to someones opinion. I just won't do it or be a part of it.
