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

drgrant said:
If this shit sticks I can't imagine anything other than a few of the absolute smallest (low overhead) or large box mc boxerson stores sticking around.
Click to expand...
I owned a small business in MA from 94-99. Overhead is a killer in this state. The only way I see an FFL surviving is a Mill type operation where a dozen of so FFL's pay short money to rent a small area. Hell, if I read this POS bill correctly, they can't bring in restricted parts and do mail order.

If you can't ban and restrict guns completely, make it impossible for FFL's to do business.

All part of the plan....
 
EJFudd said:
All I am asking GOAL to do is to NOT confuse us with the silly bug/likely mistake issues in the new law any more than they absolutely have to. You can see from many of the posts in this thread that GOAL is confusing folks on some points more than it is helping. Don't put out nonsense that reads more like a funds raising effort than a practical and honest guide to the new law. @not new guy is 100% right: Hire a lawyer or two to help if necessary. Let's get it right. We look to GOAL to help us, not just scare us and take our money like the NRA used to do.

There has got to be a better way. Please GOAL... do better. [thumbsup]
Click to expand...

You do realize, that, right now, even before this shit was passed... if I hired like 3 or 4 different prominent MA gun attorneys to evaluate certain issues under MA law....

That they all might come up with slightly different conclusions about various parts of MGL?

A simpler strategy is to divide the garbage into 2 piles- one where interpretation is easy and a second list of shit where you put all of the waffley stuff and mark it with a disclaimer.

Thats about all you can really do.

I think also people do a disservice to themselves by bathing in this garbage, outside of the like handful of issues that are hard coded like the gov building ban, etc.
 
Woodsloafer said:
I have a few friends who are cops as well, they don't give a shit about who owns what guns either. Don't do something stupid that attracts law enforcement and you'll have no issues. There are plenty of verboten guns out there now owned by people who haven't been arrested, etc., and I expect it will continue to be status quo. However, smack your wife or someone else around, make crazy threats, DWI with a bunch of guns on your backseat, etc. and all bets are off.
Click to expand...
No im sorry if these cops did not give a shit the guns would be in a duffle bag for someone go pick up later at the station for you.
DUI should have 0 to do with your guns in the car , unless of course your sending rounds randomly out the window while DUI?
Woodsloafer said:
They always have.
Click to expand...
Right, but now we have representation so they can say FU pay your taxes we represent you.
 
HARRYM said:
GOAL can only do what their resources allow them to do.
Click to expand...
Here's an idea (for little/no cost): Could GOAL get some friendly pro-2A Republican MA legislators to help explain to us some of the weirder parts of the new law?

Especially the ones directly involved. I'd sure appreciate hearing their thoughts. 🤔
 
drgrant said:
You do realize, that, right now, even before this shit was passed... if I hired like 3 or 4 different prominent MA gun attorneys to evaluate certain issue I like the idea s under MA law....

That they all might come up with slightly different conclusions about various parts of MGL?

A simpler strategy is to divide the garbage into 2 piles- one where interpretation is easy and a second list of shit where you put all of the waffley stuff and mark it with a disclaimer.

Thats about all you can really do.

I think also people do a disservice to themselves by bathing in this garbage, outside of the like handful of issues that are hard coded like the gov building ban, etc.
Click to expand...
No dispute with that. In fact, I like your idea. [thumbsup]
 
EJFudd said:
Here's an idea (for little/no cost): Could GOAL get some friendly pro-2A Republican MA legislators to help explain to us some of the weirder parts of the new law?

Especially the ones directly involved. I'd sure appreciate hearing their thoughts. 🤔
Click to expand...
My guess is the few of them who exist will let the dust settle and see what steps any 2A organizations may be taking. Truthfully there really ain't many of them that are solid 2A.
 
HARRYM said:
My guess is the few of them who exist will let the dust settle and see what steps any 2A organizations may be taking. Truthfully there really ain't many of them that are solid 2A.
Click to expand...
GOAL supposedly still has some friends in the Legislature. Whether or not they would be willing to help us understand the weirder provisions of the bill is another matter. 🤔
 
EJFudd said:
GOAL supposedly still has some friends in the Legislature. Whether or not they would be willing to help us understand the weirder provisions of the bill is another matter. 🤔
Click to expand...
The one's they have understand that the courts are the only thing that can save the 2A in MA. Hell, I remember quite some time ago the Supreme Court of MA ruled that the 2A did not apply to MA citizens.
 
maltc said:
View attachment 900045
View attachment 900046
Click to expand...
A ban is a ban strings or not, post or not. This will be easily challenged. They know it but as we have all said getting it before the SCOTUS takes years. They also know that if they can regain full control of the US House, US Senate and the WH they WILL STACK THE COURT and when any MA case shows up it will be before the stacked court and won't have a snowballs chance in hell of being overturned.
 
HARRYM said:
GOAL can only do what their resources allow them to do.
Click to expand...
It doesn't cost anything to add a notice that
(a) GOAL' interpretation is not legal advice and
(b) The position of MA officials and the courts may differ from GOAL's interpretation

Like gun shop clerks and police officers, GOAL is not an authority figure when it comes to gun law.
 
Last edited:
paul73 said:
this part is not new and it was his opinion for a long while.

View attachment 900052
Click to expand...

What I don't get is how they can justify different treatment for pre-2016 and post-2016 guns. All are AWs per her enforcement notice, which at the end of the day was just... an enforcement notice. If one group is an illegal AW so is the other. If one was legally possessed so was the other.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
It doesn't cost anything to add a notice that
(a) GOAL' interpretation is not legal advice and
(b) The position of MA officials and the courts may differ from GOAL's interpretation

Like gun shop clerks and police officers, GOAL is not an authority figure when it comes to gun law.
Click to expand...
I lost you or you lost me there.
 
not new guy said:
What I don't get is how they can justify different treatment for pre-2016 and post-2016 guns. All are AWs per her enforcement notice, which at the end of the day was just... an enforcement notice. If one group is an illegal AW so is the other. If one was legally possessed so was the other.
Click to expand...
Because they can. Pre and post is gun banning and if the SCOTUS isn't stacked by the time this MA law gets before them it will be overturned.
 

Similar threads

Check out TSUSA @ the Great American Outdoor Show
Replies
0
Views
33
TargetSportsUSA
TargetSportsUSA
Overheard at the airport
4 5 6
Replies
154
Views
3K
dcmdon
dcmdon
Post in the correct forums
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
The H&K P7 M13 is Coming Back? The P7 Pro at SHOT Show 2025!
2
Replies
59
Views
582
Tartakovsky
Tartakovsky
H&K suppressor sights
Replies
0
Views
37
Sam P
S
Back
Top Bottom