Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. It's legal to own a "ghost gun" if you have a FID or LTC (a "firearm license" to the uninitiated I think), but 100% a felony to own one without one. Even in the home.
-
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.
The Conference Committee has sent official language out - h.4885
- Thread starter GOAL
- Start date
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. It's legal to own a "ghost gun" if you have a FID or LTC (a "firearm license" to the uninitiated I think), but 100% a felony to own one without one. Even in the home.
citoriguy
NES Member
What about hand guns? I’ve always wanted a Pastera 1911 but my favorite FFL said I can’t have one because of this bill and that I’m trying to buy it on 09/01. Does that change the dynamics of the convo materially enough?
pastera
NES Member
Find a different FFL
Until this new law becomes effective there is no reason he can't transfer a frame to you.
citoriguy
NES Member
Just, for the record, that was a purely hypothetical situation.
pastera
NES Member
Sorry, was not paying that close attention.
While you would have standing this would be a tough one to win in Mass
Scotus has stated that regulations on the commercial sale of arms are presumptively lawful so crappy states have taken advantage of that presumption.
The easier way is to attack the limits on out of state purchases since background checks make any reason for the limit obsolete.
Got a reply and I am just amazed at how backwards he's got it. Not sure where he's getting his information from. So I had to send him a response making it clear as day what a licensee is defined as
EJFudd
NES Member
Your "someone" is a moron. Sorry, but he needs to go back to grade school before anything else.
Co-worker. Nice guy...but clearly clueless on this. LolYour "someone" is a moron. Sorry, but he needs to go back to grade school before anything else.
EJFudd
NES Member
You had me going there for a minute when I thought that was a reply from one of our illustrious DimocRAT politicians who had worked on the new law.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
BroncoAZ
NES Member
... and yet we see the dealers here taking both pro and con positions on the petition effort... many against it.
I'll be honest: My first concern in all of this mess is for the healthy survival of the dealers. Without them, we are screwed. I can have this attitude because I am in a good place licensing-wise and on the owned 'guns & ammo' side. Yes, there will always be something more or new to add to the arsenal, but I'm in good shape.
And consider this: We need the dealers for more than just buying. We will need them for transfers and selling too... especially out-of-state selling if the new Monstrosity anti-2A law survives.
Individuals can ship firearms directly to FFL’s for transfer, you don’t need an outgoing FFL to sell things out of state. Some dealers aren’t willing to accept shipments from individuals, but I’ve done it several times.
EJFudd
NES Member
Understood. For me, it has always worked best with an FFL involved on both ends.
![[thumbsup]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/044.gif "Thumbs Up [thumbsup]")
I think that will become even more the case if the Monstrosity anti-2A law survives into my coming collection reduction years.
You can do this but generally speaking its a pain in the ass, it's more inconvenient and will cost you more than it does to just have the FFL do it... especially when it comes to
handguns going via USPS vs overnight UPS, which only FFL's can do. My FFLs have better hours than any fedex or UPS depot as well. It would literally cost me more time/money in most cases to ship a gun myself. It's much easier to drop it off at my FFL on a saturday or sunday or some evening and have them process it.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 11,269
- Likes
- 11,034
I’ve only browsed this law, but apparently in Massachusetts you can have a beer in one hand and a gun in the other? america.
As long as the gun isn’t loaded, *or* you are not “under the influence” of alcohol or sniffing glue.
As of 10/23, it’ll be legal provided you blow under .08, I believe. Not recommended to test.
Someone corrected this on me earlier the only thing the 08 does is add another vector it doesn't remove the original vector which is the "they were intoxicated because I said so because I'm the police" vector.As of 10/23, it’ll be legal provided you blow under .08, I believe. Not recommended to test.
all the 08 thing does is allow another simple method for them to secure a conviction.As of 10/23, it’ll be legal provided you blow under .08, I believe. Not recommended to test.
No, this is wrong.
You're in trouble if you're over 0.08 BAC
--- OR ---
"under the influence"
The existing law did not have anything removed, they can still nail you for being under the influence if they say you were under the influence.
They added a criteria, they didn't change the existing criteria.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2014
- Messages
- 11,269
- Likes
- 11,034
You have to remember .08 is amateur level..
This retard who tagged me in Texas…took everything I have not to shoot back
To be fair, even if he wasn’t drinking, he was still retarded
This retard who tagged me in Texas…took everything I have not to shoot back
To be fair, even if he wasn’t drinking, he was still retarded
anyone who thinks there will be any chances to overturn this law is a lunatic. it is just not how it is done in this country.
this is how it`s done:
"In one such story, an agent from the U.S. Department of Agriculture informed a young magician, Marty Hahne, that he needed a license for using his rabbit in the act he had just performed at a local library. Hahne subsequently learned he also needed an evacuation plan for the animal in case of a hurricane or some other disaster. This requirement originated in a federal statute, the Animal Welfare Act, which regulates the treatment of dogs, cats, rabbits, and other animals for research, teaching, testing, and exhibition. Congressional lawmakers called on the USDA to apply the law to such venues as “carnivals, circuses, and zoos.” USDA regulators interpreted those exhibitions to include magic shows."
this is how it`s done:
"In one such story, an agent from the U.S. Department of Agriculture informed a young magician, Marty Hahne, that he needed a license for using his rabbit in the act he had just performed at a local library. Hahne subsequently learned he also needed an evacuation plan for the animal in case of a hurricane or some other disaster. This requirement originated in a federal statute, the Animal Welfare Act, which regulates the treatment of dogs, cats, rabbits, and other animals for research, teaching, testing, and exhibition. Congressional lawmakers called on the USDA to apply the law to such venues as “carnivals, circuses, and zoos.” USDA regulators interpreted those exhibitions to include magic shows."
chris_1001
NES Member
to the contrary, it is very, very real. it is what an actual reality is, right very now.
it is very convenient to ignore it, of course, like nothing of that exists, until it fines you and demands a license for your disappearing act.
chris_1001
NES Member
I’m waiting for my fine once I leave Massachusetts (hopefully soon)
I’m sure mura is not done with me.
Chevron strikes again.
make sure to choose wisely.
agile population that turned good states into shit is moving now into red states that are not total shit yet, but soon will be quite the same as places they moved from, as shit is not in the land, it is in the heads. and it happens very fast.
Rockrivr1
NES Member
The day we see red States like Texas turn blue is the time we are truly screwed.
btnh6668
NES Member
The voting numbers suggest that will happen soon.
Someone corrected this on me earlier the only thing the 08 does is add another vector it doesn't remove the original vector which is the "they were intoxicated because I said so because I'm the police" vector.
Oh great. Someone should let GOAL know. Weren’t they saying this was one of the wins from this law?
I honestly don’t understand why nobody at GOAL is paying attention to these threads.
I get that they want to be cautious, but when something they said is easily proven wrong, they should correct their statements and publications.
pastera
NES Member
No, 0.08 or over and you are prima facie "under the influence"As of 10/23, it’ll be legal provided you blow under .08, I believe. Not recommended to test.
Below that the state needs to show evidence of influence - but that's usually an easy to overcome threshold of "I am trained to observe the influences of drugs and alcohol. In my professional opinion I observed multiple signs that the defendant was intoxicated"
I think they are waiting to hire a communications director. For now just pony up the donations and bend over and wait for the plan to become clearer.
