No more Semi Auto Rifles in Mass?? (Boston, Lawrence: insurance, utility costs)

[bohemka]

Originally Posted by Bruins_Fan

Wow, are you paying attention?! It absolutely IS a new interpretation of the law. Oh, and it's as clear as mud.

If you actually read the law and the enforcement notice, it's extremely clear. All of these doomsday scenarios being painted by you and others are ridiculous.

Application of this Enforcement Notice (dealers licensed under G.L. c. 140, § 122):
The Guidance will not be applied to future possession, ownership or transfer of Assault weapons by dealers, provided that the dealer has written evidence that the weapons were transferred to the dealer in the Commonwealth prior to July 20, 2016, and provided further that a transfer made after July 20, 2016, if any, is made to persons or businesses in states where such weapons are legal.


Application of this Enforcement Notice (individual gun owners):
The Guidance will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer of an Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016.

There it is, plain as day. All the guns you're fretting about being made illegal overnight are just as legal or illegal as they were on the day anyone received them.

The rest of the enforcement notice provides all the info you're likely to need, and if you still can't figure it out, just give Healey's office a call: 617-963-2775

It should go without saying that absolutely none of this infringes on your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

[HumpDay]

As a Connecticut resident, that sucks! Our gun laws are surprisingly more lenient than yours and they're strict as it is because of what happened in Newtown. I would never want to live in MA since it's a nanny state. That's why so many are leaning towards the "live free or die" state.

[Cape Cod Todd]

Originally Posted by bohemka

If you actually read the law and the enforcement notice, it's extremely clear. All of these doomsday scenarios being painted by you and others are ridiculous.

There it is, plain as day. All the guns you're fretting about being made illegal overnight are just as legal or illegal as they were on the day anyone received them.

The rest of the enforcement notice provides all the info you're likely to need, and if you still can't figure it out, just give Healey's office a call: 617-963-2775

It should go without saying that absolutely none of this infringes on your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

It sounds simple enough but it is not and making a mistake makes you a felon where all your other guns will be confiscated and you could face up to 10 years in prison.

Healey did set up a hotline to call if you have questions but those people don't know much either according to the President of the Gum Owners Action League. On the radio last week he talked about the experience of a gun dealer. He had called the hot line asking about several bodies of AR15 type guns he had in stock. The bodies (not the right word) but I'm referring to the base of the gun where other parts like the barrel and stock are attached to. These "bodies" are the base of the gun and have serial numbers. The dealer called the hotline and asked what he should do with these bodies and he was told to register them, essentially selling them to himself. He went ahead and did that according to the old law, he called back to the hotline asking what he should do next and the hotline operator told him that he had just committed a felony.
Will he now lose his business, his personal guns, will he go to prison?

No one seems to know the answer.

What Healey has done is she opened a box of snakes and walked away leaving law abiding gun owners in the dark.

[Bruins_Fan]

Originally Posted by bohemka

If you actually read the law and the enforcement notice, it's extremely clear. All of these doomsday scenarios being painted by you and others are ridiculous.

There it is, plain as day. All the guns you're fretting about being made illegal overnight are just as legal or illegal as they were on the day anyone received them.

The rest of the enforcement notice provides all the info you're likely to need, and if you still can't figure it out, just give Healey's office a call: 617-963-2775

It should go without saying that absolutely none of this infringes on your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I've downloaded and read both her letter to dealers and the Enforcement Notice in their entirety. You conveniently left out a key part. This is the COMPLETE last section of the Enforcement Notice:

Application of this Enforcement Notice (individual gun owners):

The Guidance will not be applied to possession, ownership or transfer of an Assault weapon obtained prior to July 20, 2016.

The AGO reserves the right to alter or amend this guidance.

If you don't believe me, here is the link: http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safet...s-guidance.pdf

That one little line of text is key. Just as she just changed the interpretation of an 18 year old EXISTING LAW, she is reserving the "right" to amend and change her so-called "guidance" on this law. Again, no due process, no legislative involvement. Clearly, this will need to run its course through the Court system. Healey is behaving like a little dictator, and yes, getting away with it.

Either way, this likely won't impact me, as I plan to be moved across the border to free New Hampshire, out of reach of this tyrannical woman.

[bohemka]

Originally Posted by Bruins_Fan

I've downloaded and read both her letter to dealers and the Enforcement Notice in their entirety. You conveniently left out a key part. This is the COMPLETE last section of the Enforcement Notice:



If you don't believe me, here is the link: http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safet...s-guidance.pdf

That one little line of text is key. Just as she just changed the interpretation of an 18 year old EXISTING LAW, she is reserving the "right" to amend and change her so-called "guidance" on this law. Again, no due process, no legislative involvement. Clearly, this will need to run its course through the Court system. Healey is behaving like a little dictator, and yes, getting away with it.

Either way, this likely won't impact me, as I plan to be moved across the border to free New Hampshire, out of reach of this tyrannical woman.

You're viewing this through your distrust-of-government glasses, so I concede there's no amount of rationale that will satisfy you.

The courts would ensure that any changes to this guidance wouldn't be retroactive. That's obvious to anyone who's not a conspiracy theorist. Her own dated notices would make sure of that as well, just as she explicitly laid out the effective date in this notice. There is absolutely nothing to be objectively upset about here. These copycat weapons were already against the law, and this notice actually reduces the ambiguity of the already existing law.

Regardless, this guidance is directed at gun dealers, not gun owners. It does not impact a single gun owner — unless you want an assault weapon, which were already illegal here.

I agree you should move. You seem to be in great misery here.

[Bruins_Fan]

Originally Posted by bohemka

You're viewing this through your distrust-of-government glasses, so I concede there's no amount of rationale that will satisfy you.

The courts would ensure that any changes to this guidance wouldn't be retroactive. That's obvious to anyone who's not a conspiracy theorist. Her own dated notices would make sure of that as well, just as she explicitly laid out the effective date in this notice. There is absolutely nothing to be objectively upset about here. These copycat weapons were already against the law, and this notice actually reduces the ambiguity of the already existing law.

Regardless, this guidance is directed at gun dealers, not gun owners. It does not impact a single gun owner — unless you want an assault weapon, which were already illegal here.

I agree you should move. You seem to be in great misery here.

I believe what I can see in-writing. No different than any other legal document or contract. While I am not an attorney, I know you need to go with what's in-writing, not a hopeful wish of what might or might not be okay. The little dictator wrote the document leaving her options open. What changes she may make, no one really knows. If you want to trust her, be my guest. But I'm betting you own zero firearms, so no skin off your nose if she changes the "rules", yet again. I'm legal today. As for tomorrow, next month, or next year? Who knows.

And you are still wrong, those semi-auto "copy cat" rifles were NOT ILLEGAL to sell, possess, or own. Up until July 20/21st, they were LEGALLY sold at dealers throughout the state. You are just plain wrong. You are insisting on making that false statement.

And I'll give you the last statement. I am unhappy in Mass. That will be resolved in due time.

[bohemka]

Originally Posted by Bruins_Fan

And you are still wrong, those semi-auto "copy cat" rifles were NOT ILLEGAL to sell, possess, or own. Up until July 20/21st, they were LEGALLY sold at dealers throughout the state. You are just plain wrong. You are insisting on making that false statement.

This is a direct quote from the Commonwealth's preexisting definition of an assault weapon (as in, not legal; my emphasis in bold):

Assault weapon: Shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC?70); (iv) Colt AR?15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.

The new enforcement guidance provides a two-part test to further establish what is considered a copy or duplicate of an assault weapon. The previously existing verbiage is actually more open to interpretation than that provided by the new enforcement guidance.

But instead of acknowledging that, we get headlines like "Massachusetts Attorney General Unilaterally Rewrites the State’s Gun Laws." Disingenuous to say the least.

[Bruins_Fan]

^Going to have to agree to disagree.

[Bruins_Fan]

Pretty succinct from a well respected MA attorney:

Quoted from attorney Keith G. Langer:

AG Healey's assertion that she is now implementing the disingenuously described "assault weapons" law as written is absurd. Let us review:

1. The criteria determining what is an "assault weapon" was set forth in Federal law in 1994. It remained law for a decade; from Maine to American Samoa. Everywhere, it was understood it, applied, and the gun makers complied. Period.

2. In 1998, Chapter 180 adopted the Federal definition and criteria verbatim, incorporating it into MA law. It further established a SEPARATE LICENSE, the LTC, which was required to possess any "large capacity" gun, INCLUDING long arms. This is the settled law AG Healey now inverts.

3. In 2005, Chapter 150 again addressed firearms ownership and licensing. It REENACTED the exact same definition of "assault weapon" verbatim, and kept the requirement of a separate license to possess any "large capacity" firearm.

4. In 2014, after exhaustive "listening tours" and a protracted negotiations process, the legislature enacted Chapter 284. NO change was made to the well-settled, twice-enacted definition of "assault weapon" or the criteria which made a gun one.

The AG's directive FLOUTS all of the above; IGNORES the clear intent, express language, and documented legislative history of one Federal statute and two state statutes defining "assault weapon."

Former AG Harshbarger now claims the present AG is correctly enforcing the law, as do his two successors. Yet NONE of them attempted such a blatant inversion of that clear, explicit law.

This AG's edict is a power grab; pure and simple. It goes directly against the fundamental law. Her subsequent claims of "clarification" is merely compound her travesty.

[snatale1]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

While I don't necessarily agree with the ban, she is well within her rights to do.

She's not "well within her rights" to restrict constitutional rights.