Gun Ban

Issues of a more global nature: National Politics, etc.
Forum rules
Please Click Here To View Rules ---- To contact the administrator please email admin@southshoreforums.com
Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Oct Sat 08, 2016 5:44 pm


Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Oct Tue 11, 2016 11:06 am

from article...
"Massachusetts AG refuses to disclose details of gun law interpretation process"
By Evan Lips | August 26, 2016, 16:41 EDT
“By hiding behind the ‘deliberative process’ exemptions of the public records law, she is preventing the citizens of the commonwealth from understanding how her decision was made,” Reinhart said Friday. “If this change had been done as a change of statute there would have been hearings, testimony and recorded votes.

http://newbostonpost.com/2016/08/26/mas ... n-process/
FROM COMMENTS:
Keith G. Langer bgilman45 • a month ago
What utter nonsense.

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. The legislature clearly knew what an "assault weapon" was, defined both them and "large capacity feeding," and expressly addressed those issues. It also specifically provided for the legal ownership of "large capacity" guns and mags, both "preban" and "postban," including those guns defined as "assault weapons."

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." It does so with NO consultation with, still less prior notice to, those directly affected; owners and dealers.

This is a power grab by the AG. It goes directly against the fundamental law. Her assertions of "clarification" and "legislative intent" are a smokescreen for this travesty
Fun with definitions..."copycat rifle" and "deliberative process".......TBA

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Oct Wed 26, 2016 6:52 pm

from article ...."The Politics of Victimhood"
by Bruce Thornton Thursday, October 16, 2014
http://www.hoover.org/research/politics-victimhood
Focusing on any one citizen’s unfortunate experience obscures the fact that public policy affects millions of people with differing views on what aims we collectively pursue and put into law. Moreover, policy must adhere to the constitutional limits on government action and conform to existing law. The complex clash of conflicting beliefs and respect for the law requires clear, coherent thinking of the sort difficult to achieve when issues are clouded with emotion and sentiment. It also requires open deliberation and debate, which are short-circuited by indulgence of the ad misericordiam fallacy, the use of pity, compassion, or sympathy to entice, or browbeat, people into accepting a conclusion not earned by argument. Giffords indulged this fallacy last year when the Senate did not pass gun-control legislation she favored. Speaking of Senators who had voted against the bill, she later wrote, some “looked into my eyes as I talked about being shot in the head at point-blank range.” It may sound harsh, but as National Review’s Kevin Williamson writes, “Being shot in the head by a lunatic does not give one any special grace to pronounce upon public-policy questions.” Nor does it give one the expertise, knowledge, and sober arguments necessary for public political debate on contentious issues.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Oct Mon 31, 2016 5:29 pm

These letter writing lawyers seem as unconcerned with due process as Maura and Hillary.
GOAL Director Keith Langer is an attorney and a subscribing
member of Mass Lawyers Weekly. He was dismayed recently to
read an op-ed in their members only news, which supports the
actions of Attorney General Healey.

Attorney Langer wrote the rebuttal below, which will be published by
Mass Lawyers Weekly.
KEITH G. LANGER
Attorney at Law
Admitted in Massachusetts and Rhode Island
255 Harvard Lane, Wrentham, MA 02093-1069
Phone: (508) 384-8692 Fax: (508) 384-3547
keith@kglangerlaw.com

October 23, 2016

Lawyers Weekly
Attention: Editor
10 Milk Street, Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02108
Dear Editors:
In the October 20th issue of MLW, the editorial board declared, “AG
on right side of ‘copycat’ gun issue.” I beg to differ.
Specifically, I believe the AG’s precipitate and unilateral action flouts
over two decades of settled law, with little substantive basis for that
action. It logically follows that the MLW editorial board’s
endorsement of that fiat is disappointing.

Let us review the facts:

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, its identification of those guns
specifically (if speciously) identified as “assault weapons” was
understood, as were the detailed criteria and features by which other
guns would be so deemed. The statutory criteria were duly applied,
and the gun makers complied with them, removing those features.

2. In 1998, Chapter 180 adopted the Federal definition and criteria
verbatim, incorporating it into Massachusetts law. All firearms
meeting the Federal criteria, therefore, necessarily met the new,
identical, Massachusetts criteria. The criteria are set forth in M.G.L. c.
140, §121.

That act further established a separate license, the License To
Carry Firearms (LTC), which was required to possess any “large
capacity” gun, including long arms. So-called “assault weapons”
were, inherently by definition, “large capacity,” meaning the
legislature created a new firearms license which was required to
own these guns.

Therefore, the Massachusetts legislature clearly knew what an
“assault weapon” was, as it defined both the guns and “large
capacity feeding devices” which are the fundamental basis for that
definition. Expressly addressing those issues, the legislature
specifically provided for the legal ownership of “large capacity” guns
and mags, both “preban” and “postban,” including those guns
defined it defined as “assault weapons.”
In short, the legislature statutorily authorized the possession and
transfer of the very class of firearms AG Healey has unilaterally
declared “illegal.” Yet the MLW Editorial Board endorses her action.


3. In 2005, Chapter 150 again addressed firearms ownership and
licensing. It re-enacted the exact same definition of “assault weapon”
verbatim, and again kept the requirement of a specific license, the
LTC, to possess any “large capacity” firearm.


4. In 2014, after exhaustive “listening tours” and protracted
negotiations between the house and senate, Chapter 284 was
enacted. Yet again, no change was made to the well-settled,
twice-enacted definition of “assault weapon,” or the criteria by which
a gun would be so defined. Yet again, the LTC was kept as a
requirement for owning any “large capacity firearm.”

AG Healey’s directive flouts all of the above statutes; she ignores
the clear intent, express language, and documented legislative
history of one Federal statute and two state statutes specifically
defining “assault weapon.” She does so with no consultation with, still
less prior notice to, those directly affected; gun owners and dealers.

Such notice as was given was, initially, in a letter to the Globe, with
mere hours before her reversal of two decades of settled law took
place. It resulted in those guns lawfully acquired and possessed
unilaterally being declared unlawful, exposing the owners to criminal
sanctions. Yet the MLW Editorial Board endorses that act.

Note that all three (3) of AG Healey’s immediate predecessors
never interpreted the “assault weapon” statute, M.G.L. c. 140, §121,
as she does. That includes Editorial Board member Harshbarger.
Are we really to believe three (3) consecutive Attorneys General
failed to comprehend the law?

AG Healey’s dictat goes directly against the well-settled, clearly
defined, and thrice-enacted law. The MLW editorial board’s
endorsement of that act is ill-considered.

Very truly yours,

Keith G. Langer

On its "About Us" web page...http://masslawyersweekly.com/about-us/ ...the MLW newspaper states its mission is to report on decisions issued by all state and federal courts within Massachusetts. Is it also within this newspapers scope to print letters from lawyers attempting to influence the outcome of pending court cases and to do this without benefit of all the facts which can only be uncovered by that process??

When you are on the wrong side of an issue you can always bring in more warm bodies and make a real circus out of the case.

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4197
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Nov Wed 02, 2016 7:30 am

Sturm, Ruger & Co. on Tuesday reported third-quarter earnings and said there was "stronger-than-normal" demand for guns this summer, which was likely boosted by election campaigning.

The gunmaker said net sales rose 34% year-on-year to $161.4 million, and it earned $1.03 in adjusted earnings per share.

These results come one week before a presidential election in which gun control is one of the most contentious issues. Hillary Clinton wants to reinstate the assault-weapons ban following recent mass shootings with them. Donald Trump opposes a ban; he wants to fix gun legislation and focus on mental healthcare.

During the second-quarter earnings call in August, Sturm Ruger CEO Michael Fifer called on "our customers and all freedom-loving Americans to take action in support of the Second Amendment," especially leading up to the election.
300 Million in the country and counting; nothing like fear to spike up gun sales...

Smart pitch from the CEO.

The Bundy Boys were probably first in line someplace; need lots of guns to take over more wildlife refuges...the ducks could be armed, you can never be too careful...

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9658
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Nov Wed 02, 2016 7:59 am

Fear? how about exercising your rights.
Good Dog

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4197
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Nov Wed 02, 2016 8:18 am

Fear? how about exercising your rights.
It's fear, period. Fear the 2nd will go away and or the gov will come for the guns. Next mass killing, you'll hear the pols bleat and gun sales will go through the roof...

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3019
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by HokieAl » Nov Wed 02, 2016 8:57 am

Mac66 wrote:
Fear? how about exercising your rights.
It's fear, period. Fear the 2nd will go away and or the gov will come for the guns. Next mass killing, you'll hear the pols bleat and gun sales will go through the roof...
Just like Obamacare wasn't a stepping stone to single payer. Believe what they tell you instead of your own common sense.

Keep in mind that Hillary has two sets of principles. Which one do you think applies here?

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9658
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Nov Wed 02, 2016 10:17 am

It's not fear it's the American public asserting itself when faced with the current repressive arrogant federal government. It a f*ck you to Obama, Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi and all the other liberal like mined people. F*ck you you not going to stop us.
Good Dog

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Nov Thu 03, 2016 8:27 am

It's fear, period. Fear the 2nd will go away and or the gov will come for the guns.
I have to admit the thought of what I know I would have to do as a result of the loss of my civil rights does scare me.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12041
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Nov Thu 03, 2016 9:30 am

It's fear, period. Fear the 2nd will go away
Sure :lol: Just like in hitler's germany, stalin's russia, and let's not forget china...

You're cool with that OK... We should follow your models, eh??
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4197
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Nov Thu 03, 2016 12:04 pm

We should follow your models, eh??
I would never vote to repeal. Just don't want you and your dumbass long gun carrying buddies walking in to McDonald's complaining about your happy meals...

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3019
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by HokieAl » Nov Thu 03, 2016 12:18 pm

How often does that happen? Enough where something needs to be done? Or just wasting time and money, the epitome of govt action.

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4197
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Nov Thu 03, 2016 12:55 pm

the epitome of govt action.
Right, the evil government. Go for anarchy, see where that goes. You whine about everything else the gov does, good or bad. Just no satisfying the complainers...

Your hero Trump wants to lead the evil government, remember? Not conservative by a long shot, barely a Republican.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12041
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Nov Thu 03, 2016 3:24 pm

you and your dumbass long gun carrying buddies
Who says I carry??
Right, the evil government. Go for anarchy,
WOOOO, we are already nearing anarchy... I'll be glad to get out of here with my hat and jacket, well, maybe some other stuff too...

Has the government of the USA ever been in such sad shape in all of our lives?? As in corrupt??
How many decades of 'progressive' rule?? It still doesn't seem to work right... Sho nuff we are out of money, what else you got??
I would be a fan of the Trump for new, shiny, clean, strong, healthy, families, goals, etc... Going up!!!

Much gelt with the new improved version on the hill... Praise the Lord.... ( and save your ammunition )
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9658
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Nov Thu 03, 2016 6:26 pm

Mac66 posted.... Right, the evil government. Go for anarchy, see where that goes.

What makes you say that? who posted what for you to think that?

What makes you think we want anarchy. honest question

The only people I've seen in MacDonald's really causing trouble are democratic constituents or people who depend on government.
Good Dog

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4559
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » Nov Thu 03, 2016 10:38 pm

Mac66 wrote:I would never vote to repeal.
Of course. But you would vote for those likely to effectuate the 'repeal.'

Thanks, Pontius.
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4197
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Nov Fri 04, 2016 6:59 am

Of course. But you would vote for those likely to effectuate the 'repeal.'

Clueless. The repeal would come from the Supreme Court. Appointed, not voted.

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4559
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » Nov Fri 04, 2016 7:32 am

Mac66 wrote:Clueless. The repeal would come from the Supreme Court. Appointed, not voted.
OK. Let me post a few synonyms that you might understand:
beget, breed, bring, bring about, bring on, catalyze, cause, create, do, draw on, effect, engender, generate, induce, invoke, make, occasion, produce, prompt, result (in), spawn, translate (into), work, yield.

This means you vote for the kinds of candidates that facilitate (and continue) the takedown of the USA - including the APPOINTMENT of Politically Correct activist libtard Marxists like Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg & Breyer, et al.

And you are supporting the election of Hillary. You're just part of the effort to suppress votes for Trump - while claiming some form of 'neutrality.'

No doubt you believe what Killary believes. She wants the Supreme Court to 'represent' people and groups.
As if we need at least one of each of these: a 'gay' justice, a 'black' justice, a 'transgender' justice, a 'woman' justice, etc.
Or, maybe an entire bench that will simply shred or manipulate the Constitution to effectuate (There's that word again.), social change.
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4197
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Nov Fri 04, 2016 8:03 am

No doubt you believe what Killary believes
And you are supporting the election of Hillary.
What's with you people? Can't read or don't understand what you read?

Not voting for Hilary. Not donating, no signage, no calls, no nothing.

Would have gladly voted for Kasich. What part of this don't you get? It's not difficult to grasp.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Nov Fri 04, 2016 3:50 pm

Not voting for Hilary. Not donating, no signage, no calls, no nothing.
You ought to decide what your trying to do.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Nov Fri 04, 2016 6:44 pm

More Comments
NewBostonPost
http://newbostonpost.com/2016/08/16/mas ... nd-resign/
MACHGLOBAL smartz118 • 2 months ago

1. Your rogue AG is going to be removed

2. There is legal precedent in Federal court where she acted illegaly.

3. People with permits followed the law, paid for a firearms course, paid for a permit, went through a background check and now you want to limit them to single shot rifles ? One could load a 9mm large capcity pistol and get off 150 rounds in one minute to an effective range of 50 feet. How does limiting a magazine capacity create m ore safety ?

4. You're going to create a Guerrilla war in America with the insanity of liberals believing guns are the problem. Do cars kill people ? Knives ? See your logic is so flawed your premise is dead on arrival.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit concluded that the semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned by Maryland's Firearm Safety Act "are in common use by law-abiding citizens." As a result, they don't fall under the exception to the right to bear arms that applies to "unusual" weapons such as machine guns and hand grenades, the court said.

5. The NRA and GOAL and full membership will support all 540,000 Mass gun owners (Licensed) to remove Charles Baker and at the same time his AG, hopefully before the next election.

In the mean time try to lobby for mentally ill people on psychtropic drugs and those undergoing psychiatric counseling to be placed on the federal decline list..That's where your problem starts.

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Nov Tue 08, 2016 2:35 pm

Pros and Cons of the Recall
Supporters of the recall maintain that it provides a way for citizens to retain control over elected officials who are not representing the best interests of their constituents, or who are unresponsive or incompetent. This view holds that an elected representative is an agent or a servant and not a master.

Opponents argue that it can lead to an excess of democracy, that the threat of a recall election lessens the independence of elected officials, that it undermines the principle of electing good officials and giving them a chance to govern until the next election, and that it can lead to abuses by well-financed special interest groups.
There are 540,000 gun owners in Massachusetts! While a recall would likely not work it would make for a lively topic of conversation at Marsha's next election campaign

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9658
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Nov Thu 10, 2016 10:39 am

here's a prediction, Gun sales across the country will decrease.

Hey moonbats this is a silver lining you've been looking foo
Good Dog

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Nov Wed 16, 2016 8:09 am

In keeping with the Dembat initiative of encouraging and creating victims, Maura Healey launches her harassment hotline.
"AG Healey launches harassment hotline in wake of Trump win"
http://newbostonpost.com/2016/11/15/ag- ... trump-win/
They should take comfort in knowing that the attorney general’s office will look into any reported incidents and take action, where appropriate, with our partners in law enforcement,” Healey told reporters at a press conference.
An allegation made in the sanctuary state of Massachusetts, by the right kind of victim, true or not, is a vote forever.
Healey added that her job as attorney general is “not to wait for things to happen” but to “make sure people know that here in the state of Massachusetts that their rights will be protected.”
"Not to wait for things to happen" - but to instigate them!

No mention here of any threats by protesters on Trump supporters. As we have seen only too clearly with Marsha's gun ban, the rights of those she will uphold is a matter of politics.

A politically motivated Attorney General is not really an attorney General at all!

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12041
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Nov Wed 16, 2016 8:28 am

that their rights will be protected.
Illegals?? What rights??
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Nov Wed 16, 2016 2:11 pm

Illegals?? What rights??
Are you kidding? It's pretty plain Marsha sees snowflakes, gays, and illegal aliens as having more rights and protections under the law than you or I. Again, she is acting pre-emptively to some perceived threat that is not happening in her own state - just as she did with the gun ban. What's next!!

Political favoritism and the position of Attorney General cannot go together in a functional representative democracy. Marsha Healey is out of control with power lust. We are only beginning to see the bullet we dodged by not electing Hillary.

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4559
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » Nov Wed 16, 2016 4:45 pm

Clearly, Healey is OFF HER ROCKER!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/ ... story.html

Promising to protect Obama's 'legacy'?!?!?!?!?
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

Joseph
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4559
Joined: Jan Wed 05, 2005 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Joseph » Nov Tue 22, 2016 8:56 am

Image

And the AG wants to be governor.
Why do so many officials FEAR and kowtow to the Marshfield Airport gang?

What is the source of their power? Does it involve some kind of unseemly enterprise? A government entity?

HokieAl
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 3019
Joined: Mar Sun 20, 2011 4:34 pm
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by HokieAl » Nov Tue 22, 2016 9:08 am

Joseph wrote:
And the AG wants to be governor.
She's got another set of problems with that federal judge.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12041
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Nov Tue 22, 2016 10:44 am

You mean the new one?? :lol:
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4197
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Nov Thu 24, 2016 7:54 am

With Obama as President, fear drove increased gun sales.

With Trump, fear is driving increased gun sales and participation in gun clubs among minorities.

300 million and counting; the common multiplier? Fear.

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9658
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Nov Thu 24, 2016 12:37 pm

increased gun sales and participation in gun clubs among minorities

What the hell are the liberal white moonbats going to do now, now that Minorities are arming themselves. It a real conundrum

will the liberals want to deny minorities their civil rights?



Good for for Americans to exercise their Second Amendment

Mac66 what's your beef?
Good Dog

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Nov Fri 25, 2016 3:41 pm

300 million and counting; the common multiplier? Fear.
Feeling a little dope slapped these days are we?
https://ixquick-proxy.com/do/spg/show_p ... afbfd85716

Vlad_Rap
Transient
Transient
Posts: 832
Joined: Feb Sat 15, 2014 3:33 pm

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Vlad_Rap » Nov Sun 27, 2016 9:29 am

"ATTORNEY GENERAL MAURA HEALEY HAS DESTROYED THE RULE OF LAW IN MASSACHUSETTS"
from...https://www.theburningplatform.com/2016 ... achusetts/
Here is her latest gobbledygook update, which is meant to help explain what is NOT an assault weapon, and therefore still legal to buy or sell, because everyone was still confused, and did not want to go to prison for TEN YEARS if they made a mistake and were prosecuted. See if you can spot the glaring idiocy of her pronouncement:

Q: Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not assault weapons?

Yes. Many rifles, shotguns, and pistols are not assault weapons, and therefore are not “copies or duplicates” of enumerated assault weapons. For example, the following are not assault weapons under G.L. c. 140, § 121:

Any handgun on the current version of the state’s Approved Firearms Roster, available here links to PDF file. Handguns are still subject to MA 940 CMR 16.00 et seq Consumer Protection Regulation;
Any .22 caliber rifle;
Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially-similar model weapon;
Any of the hundreds of rifles and shotguns listed on this list links to PDF file —Appendix A to 18 U.S.C. § 922, as appearing on September 13, 1994;
Any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
Any weapon that is an antique, relic, or theatrical prop;
Any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition;
Any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

This list is not exhaustive; it is meant for illustrative purposes only. Many other weapons are not assault weapons or “copies or duplicates” of assault weapons.

Q: Are any .22 caliber rifles affected by the Enforcement Notice?

No. However, a weapon that is manufactured as an Assault Weapon cannot be made legal by alterations that allow it to discharge .22-caliber ammunition.

Here is why it is so hard to craft LAWS regarding firearms, about which Maura Healey knows NOTHING. And apparently no one in her office knows anything either.

Did you catch it? She says the following are NOT assault weapons: ANY .22 CALIBER RIFLE. And she says it again in different language “Q: Are any .22 caliber rifles affected by the Enforcement Notice? No.”

Note the word “ANY”. In legalese, that is an all-encompassing word in a very short phrase “any .22 caliber rifle”.

As the Gun Owners Action League states in a recent email: The AG’s office declared “Any .22 caliber rifle;” is not an “assault weapon” (by her definition), however, almost all AR style rifles ARE .22 caliber. The two most common cartridges are 5.56 and .223, both use .22 caliber bullets, by her own decree she disqualified firearms on her own enforcement notice.

So here is her logic:

Any “assault weapons”, including “Mass compliant versions”, are now illegal.
Any .22 caliber rifle is not an assault weapon.

How can you reconcile those two statements?

So does this mean that an AR-15 completely outfitted with bayonet lug, collapsible stock, flash suppressor and pistol grip using 5.56 caliber ammunition is now not an assault weapon, since it uses .22 caliber ammunition?

And there is a further complication to this nonsense – Which are we to follow – the Mass General Laws which say that Mass compliant versions are legal? Or AG Healey’s guidance which says that even Mass compliant versions are illegal? Or AG Healey’s latest letter which says that any .22 caliber rifle is legal (even previously illegal assault rifles)?

Do you follow the old law, the first edict, or the latest edict?

This is what happens when there is no longer Rule of Law, but Rule of Man. The rules become changeable at a whim, and do not need to make any sense in relation to each other. Maura Healey, as a true Statist, smiling and self-righteously telling you that she is keeping you safe, is the modern face of tyranny.
Good Update...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XwIWe3eHzI ... A pattern emerges

Comment of the Day
The only way to truly find out is to own one, become noticed by a police officer, get charged and find out if you go to jail for 10 years for the first offense. That’s a hell of a way to determine what is legal and what is not.

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4197
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Nov Sun 27, 2016 10:34 am

This is all going through the courts. Rule of Law, as written by men, wins out.

She's getting ready for a run against Baker. Scoring points with her base. The campaign gets waged on the fringes, morphs into government from the center. You might check what your hero has been up to, for a current example.

The beef? People purchasing guns out of fear and media driven paranoia. On the other side, membership and donations to conservation organizations spiked after Trump's win. Why? Fear that Trump really believes global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese and that somehow coal stacks that have gradually gone dormant over the last 40 years are coming back to life.

He's spinning back to the center on both.

Knee jerk reactions, devoid of research and common sense.

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12041
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by specialties » Nov Sun 27, 2016 11:46 am

The beef? People purchasing guns out of fear and media driven paranoia.
:lol: So many quotes to destroy your base camp...

Remember who was nervous about " people with bibles and guns " ??
Since he has neither I guess we can breathe easy cuz of all the illegal guns in Chicago which go unchallenged...

It's a suckers game and the good guys are no longer interested...
And it's not paranoia when you finally get to know that 'they' really are out to get you...

Sneak off... Wait for the next generation, they look ripe for your pickins... ( useful idiots )
devoid of research and common sense
more :lol: , Start with the pilgrims then go to 1776 and now this!!! You are absent over leave...

A timely gift for you> http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/ge ... s%20office
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4197
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Nov Sun 27, 2016 12:25 pm

it's not paranoia when you finally get to know that 'they' really are out to get you...
So, only leaving the house these days to buy more Beefaroni and Twinkies? Not feeling "safe" these days?

Try Syria. Your other hero Putin's boys are bombing hospitals and schools, but at least there are no surprises...

User avatar
JIMD
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 9658
Joined: Jul Fri 02, 2004 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield

Re: Gun Ban

Post by JIMD » Nov Sun 27, 2016 12:32 pm

The only people feeling unsafe these days are the snowflakes, liberal TV talking heads and white college educated females who voted for Hillary because she has a vagina.

Barry has been in charge and remains in charge, What has he done in Syria and what has he done with Putin that's the question you need to ask.

Hey write the White house an e-mail and tell Barry how you feel about Syria and Putin, don't mention the line in the sand
Good Dog

Mac66
Citizen
Citizen
Posts: 4197
Joined: Jun Tue 06, 2000 1:01 am

Re: Gun Ban

Post by Mac66 » Nov Sun 27, 2016 1:03 pm

Barry has been in charge
Yeah, and its killing me to say this, you and I can agree he's been a foreign policy disaster. Trump could be saner and stronger, but who can say.

Post Reply