45Frank 32 Posted July 20, 2016 Sigh - I do agree with you guys - I will be long gone when that happens - by mid to end next year (at latest) we will be in NC, breathing fresh free air - once it gets too oppressive down there, we are going straight to Texas - as I've said it once and said it again, the last frontier of freedom Welcome! Where in NC are you making roots? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indianajonze 379 Posted July 21, 2016 on top of all this, i just learned that the governor of massachusetts is a republican. shameful Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n4p226r 105 Posted July 21, 2016 on top of all this, i just learned that the governor of massachusetts is a republican. shameful I don't know anything about the governor but what did he have to do with this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cereza 106 Posted July 21, 2016 I don't know anything about the governor but what did he have to do with this? Governors are responsible for implementing state laws, but they have no formal power over AGs. In a state where the AG is elected, like Mass, there's no guarantee their interests align. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bignic83 0 Posted July 21, 2016 If somehow Hillary wins I am quickly moving to Texas as Im pretty sure they are going to try and secede from the union! Cmon down y'all! Texit is a big thing right now! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mrs. Peel 7,157 Posted July 21, 2016 Just curious... since long guns don't require a permit (is that, in fact, the same in Mass as it is here?), why would any police force even know that a Mass. resident owned a much-dreaded, soul-sucking AR-15 (or any other kind of long gun for that matter)? As I understand it, there's a NICS check done (which doesn't verify a purchase even happened, right?); and then there's a sales record kept, I presume, with the firearms dealer who sold it. But, there's no "registry" per se, right? The sales receipt doesn't go to the Feds, is that right? If above is correct, is that why the rate of non-compliance has supposedly been so high with the NY SAFE act? Have a lot of NY owners basically rolled the dice and said, "well, chances are really good they don't even know I have this AR-15... so why should I turn it in?" Is that the gist of it? (Still don't have a good handle on the legal process, I'm afraid - so, thanks in advance for any clarifying answers). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T Bill 649 Posted July 21, 2016 Don't know about MA law. In NY before SAFE, a record would be in the FFL's dealer book of the first sale, and NY could go look it up and check out the buyer. But, if you sold it or took it out of state the trail ends. So, NYSP have no recourse. If you purchased one NY resident to NY resident only the seller and buyer know, if he remembers. In NJ your suppose to have completed COE. Can't find it, gray area. Taken out of state, nobody knows. Sold out of state, if person to person, Federal violation. To an out of state FFL a record exists in his book, but NJ does not know unless you tell them. Purchased out of state a record exists in the dealer's book in the state you bought it, NJ does not know a thing. I do not believe you will ever see door to door confiscation, too risky and sends the wrong message. NJ history says there is no grandfathering of any banned item, here today gone tomorrow, I know of many NJ banned items living a happy life in PA from the early 90's Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shawnmoore81 623 Posted July 21, 2016 Looks like the majority is already planning defeat Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ricky_Bobby 130 Posted July 21, 2016 More generally: We now have to abide by the INTENT of the law, not the actual wording of it? Do we now live in a country where "rule of law" is reduced to something that subjective? A "loophole" is now "that's not what we meant"? Thats exactly what progressives think - written law is subjective to interpretation and feelings - look at the Supremes - Scalia went by original intent, whereas Ginsburg goes by what she thinks it would translate to in today's time You are aware the 2nd Amendment was written about muskets right? Not these weapons of war - LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted July 21, 2016 I was listening to the NPR the other day on the way in to work (I know I know). They were talking about how there was little movement at the federal level regarding gun control - but - on the state level there has been a ton. Between 1990 and 2014 there were over 20,000 pieces of gun control introduced with over 3,000 becoming law. Some were pro gun, most were not. http://www.npr(DOT)org/2016/07/12/485726439/mass-shootings-influence-spike-in-gun-related-laws-at-state-level *replace the (DOT) with . This is "Death by a million cuts". States will continue to chip away at rights and challenges will take years to be heard at the SCOTUS level, which by then will make the new restrictions feel normal. If Hillary wins, we are even worse off. There will most likely be 3-4 SCOTUS Justices appointed by the next POTUS. If she gets to choose them they will be of the most liberal people imaginable. I heard this B.S. at least half a dozen times on NPR. One of the reasons I completely stopped listening. It's a way of making anti-gun listeners (probably 90% of WNYC's) feel good about their stupidity. And it's completely dishonest, as is NPR's alleged status as a news network. There have been a few setbacks: NY SAFE, restrictions in CT and Colorado, the assault weapons ban of the early 1990s. But if you check this famous .gif file you'll immediately see that the number of states with constitutional and shall-issue laws in 1986, and the ones that have it now. From the anti-gunner's perspective the last 30 years have been a debacle of unprecidented proportions. An utter, embarrassing refutation of every justification for gun control. Not only are there more guns, more freely-issued carried licenses, more constitutional carry states, and fewer overall restrictions, but violent crime and gun crime have plummeted during this period. These are the (to them) sad facts that demolish their position. So faced with facts they do what liberals always do, they lie lie lie and lie again instead of accepting reality. PS I'll take gun and permitting laws in rural Massachusetts any day over what we have here in semi-rural NJ. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cereza 106 Posted July 21, 2016 I've read a couple of articles about MA and I'm still unclear— was actual legislation voted on and passed, or is the AG just grandstanding? The AG is the "chief lawyer and law enforcement officer" of MA. Last I was aware, lawyers and LEOs enforce the law, they don't make law. She's jumping up and down saying she closed the loophole, but how and on what authority? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
345Sire 158 Posted July 21, 2016 Correct. You can't look at a law in Mass as a template for a law in NJ. NJ politicians will look at that and saw - how can we make it more restrictive and binding? You know, for the children Ummm, excuse me, but my child has a mini-14, and wants an AR and so do I. How's about dey leggislate fer dat? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ricky_Bobby 130 Posted July 21, 2016 None - as far as I can tell.............. but that never stopped anyone before has it? Apparently Attorney Generals in MA are the legislature and the governor all in one mighty pen! New phrase coined "executive AG orders" - it trumps the legislature and governor's power LOL I also saw that the governor is Republican but anyone who isn't blind can see that that means absolutely SHIT, especially with Tubby Boy in Trenton, who has armed security out the ass and all his buddies in the legislature have carry permits, but to the commoners, NJ is far too densely populated to allow people to run wild with guns outside their homes (I always thought the "too many people around" argument was hilarious when I hear anti-gun or NY metro RINO's talking about why a citizen shouldn't be able to carry - as if there aren't major cities in the 40+ states with carry allowance) Welcome! Where in NC are you making roots? Looking to be outside of the R-D metro area most likely - my wife and I both are going to still work so we figured best chance of getting new jobs would be in a city-esque area - if you go far enough out, there is some privacy, Pittsboro, Holly/Willow Springs, a few other towns we were looking at - I don't want to be among the new construction row homes on .2 acre or less lots, and we don't need a brand new house, so our options are pretty open in the real estate out there since everyone is buying up the brand new WOW properties that have zero land - I'd like a bit of property, farther out from the city, with more privacy, no HOA breathing down my back lol. We also were looking in the mountains where I see you are, but it looks like its tougher to buy real estate if you're totally new to the area and/or finding work I don't know how easy it is - but the mountains are BEAUTIFUL Winston-Salem metro area as well as outside Charlotte also came to mind, my in-laws are on the beach in the Southern OBX (Morehead City/Pine Knoll Shores) so being in the Raleigh area would keep us around 3 hours away - would be nice for weekend beach trips Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,811 Posted July 21, 2016 I've read a couple of articles about MA and I'm still unclear— was actual legislation voted on and passed, or is the AG just grandstanding? The AG is the "chief lawyer and law enforcement officer" of MA. Last I was aware, lawyers and LEOs enforce the law, they don't make law. She's jumping up and down saying she closed the loophole, but how and on what authority? My understanding - AG is chief law enforcement officer in the state. AG cannot create new law, but can issue a directive (which is what this is) which interprets existing law and is effectively acts as orders for LEO ("you will enforce the law in *this* way"). This directive is interpreting "copy" and "duplicate" "assault weapons" in a more restrictive way than in the past. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,811 Posted July 21, 2016 GOAL (Gun Owners Action League for Massachusetts) speaks out:http://blog.goal.org/goal-response-ag-healeys-actions/ Massachusetts Attorney General Unilaterally Changes Gun Laws http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/awbe.html Without any prior notice or public hearings and while the legislature is on break for national conventions the Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura Healey, has issued an “Enforcement Notice” to firearm retailers throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts changing the longstanding definition of so-called “Assault Weapons”. For nearly 18 years since the passage of the 1998 Gun Control Act firearm retailers, gun owners and state agencies have been operating under the same interpretation. Now, suddenly, without warning or any due process a single person with a clear political agenda decides to change the rules. All Massachusetts residents should be alarmed! GOAL is currently trying to decipher the enforcement letter, but with as much information that it contains, it is not very clear what it means. Statements such as the following make it very convoluted: “… a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons.” Virtually every semi-automatic that utilizes a detachable magazine has the same operating system or firing mechanism, so what does this mean? The short answer is we simply don’t know. Our best advice to firearm retailers for now is to err on the side of caution. These new rules may cover a lot more than just what we might think. GOAL is working with people and groups around the State and the nation to clarify these new interpretations and decide the best course of action. One thing is certain that this new interpretation is purely a political stunt and has nothing to do with public safety or real law. Jim WallaceExecutive Director Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,811 Posted July 21, 2016 From the Mass. AG's website Q&A on this: If you have any doubt about whether a particular gun is an Assault weapon, your safest course of action is not to buy it. Of course! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ricky_Bobby 130 Posted July 21, 2016 From the Mass. AG's website Q&A on this: Of course! Walks into LGS in Massachusetts: "Hey where is your assault weapons counter" "Oh its out back ask Johnny he'll open up the trunk and show you what we got - cash only, no paperwork" "OK great thanks!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silence Dogood 468 Posted July 21, 2016 GOAL (Gun Owners Action League for Massachusetts) speaks out: http://blog.goal.org/goal-response-ag-healeys-actions/ Ex Post Facto ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,811 Posted July 21, 2016 Ex Post Facto ... Do you believe the AG didn't deliberately stage this as an "ambush" and instead reached out to gun rights groups in advance to discuss it with them so they could prepare prior to the announcement? Do you believe that GOAL was negligent in staying informed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted July 21, 2016 While we're trying to figure out what this deluded, self-aggrandizing turd in a pants suit is trying to say about guns we're ignoring that she's part of a cabal of democrat AGs who are seeking to ban speech that disputes global warming. A Hillarious administration will foster even more such witch-hunts, essentially reducing the 1st Amendment nationwide to the status of the 2nd Amendment in New Jersey. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pizza Bob 1,488 Posted July 21, 2016 This is more insidious than most realize, with the potential to ban not only semi-autos (long arms and handguns), but even revolvers. The federal AWB of 1994 was based on the NJ AWB enacted the previous year. The list of prohibited weapons on the current NJ list includes... "Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder such as the "Street Sweeper" or "Striker 12"" With the language in the MA AG's directive, revolvers have the same type of operating system as the above, one of the enumerated weapons. Adios, Pizza Bob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,434 Posted July 21, 2016 So. To be an optimist. The more grandiose and overreaching this interpretation is the more likely it should be found counter to Heller and the whole law struck down. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,661 Posted July 21, 2016 This is more insidious than most realize, with the potential to ban not only semi-autos (long arms and handguns), but even revolvers. The federal AWB of 1994 was based on the NJ AWB enacted the previous year. The list of prohibited weapons on the current NJ list includes... "Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder such as the "Street Sweeper" or "Striker 12"" With the language in the MA AG's directive, revolvers have the same type of operating system as the above, one of the enumerated weapons. Adios, Pizza Bob I always wondered how the Judge type revolvers got past this. I assume it's because the barrel is rifled. Having less than zero interest in that class of handgun, I never bothered to look it up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fishnut 2,358 Posted July 22, 2016 I always wondered how the Judge type revolvers got past this. I assume it's because the barrel is rifled. Having less than zero interest in that class of handgun, I never bothered to look it up. I think it's because shotguns are defined as as being designed to be fired from the shoulder where judges were designed as handguns. I could be wrong though, that's just what I have heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pizza Bob 1,488 Posted July 22, 2016 HE nailed it - if the Judge or Governor did not have a rifled barrel, it would be a SBS, thus an NFA item. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
345Sire 158 Posted July 22, 2016 HE nailed it - if the Judge or Governor did not have a rifled barrel, it would be a SBS, thus an NFA item. Saw Nappen last night, he mentioned also the fact that while it shoots shotgun shells, it also shoots a cartridge rather than a ball and shot type load aka muskets. I don't remember all the details, but that was part of it as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DirtyDigz 1,811 Posted July 23, 2016 Rally in beantown today: 4 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indianajonze 379 Posted July 24, 2016 love it. also heard the petition to recall the ag is in full swing and the governor's phone is ringing off the hook (called a couple of times myself out of sympathy). i give this fiat about 2 weeks before it's rescinded, maybe 4-5 months before it's struck down in court Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyB 4,322 Posted July 24, 2016 love it. also heard the petition to recall the ag is in full swing and the governor's phone is ringing off the hook (called a couple of times myself out of sympathy). i give this fiat about 2 weeks before it's rescinded, maybe 4-5 months before it's struck down in court Good for you! If we can shut this down quickly we may avoid the same, or worse, happening here in the PRNJ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ogfarmer 138 Posted July 24, 2016 The legislature is not happy with AG Healey https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B31OP7322RQXeEIwMW44S1duZTBpMGkxczFSU2tTMnV6dXZ3/view?pref=2&pli=1 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites