AG Maura Healey AWB

Over the past several years, my PD has come across a few violations of the Mass "assault weapons" ban. Its usually when guns are turned in for an R/O or we come across them some other way by accident and they are obvious violations that can't be overlooked. One guy on my PD has made it a mission to track the outcome of the these cases. He says that there has not been one prosecution followed through. ALL of the cases have either been dismissed or NP'd. It appears that DAs believe that it is too confusing to prosecute or just don't care to jam people up with this law.

 

Wow!!!! I feel sooooo much safer for all that effort. Thank your buddy for me and ask him to give Maura a call, she could probably use a good man like him.........
BTW, Don't forget to post this over at Northeast shooters so those paranoid folks have more "ammunition" to believe we are all Jack booted thugs waiting to confiscate their guns

 

In Afghanistan, most Afghan civilians carry military weapons. Similarly, following cessation of formal combat operations in Iraq (May 1, 2003), private Iraqi citizens were permitted to retain Kalashnikov AK-47 or AK-74 select fire weapons in their homes for personal protection. Iraqi citizens can own an AK-47 assault rifle as long as it's registered, but it's not legal for Iraqis to maintain an armory full of bombs, sniper rifles, and other deadly items that terrorists could used. Legally, its OK to have one AK-47 and one full magazine per household. Iraqi civilians who want to own an AK-47 are required to register it with the local Iraqi police. Sooooo does this mean Iraq and Afgan people have more rights than the people of Massachusetts? One could say its their custom . . . well its our custom as well its called the second amendment.

 

The guy on my PD that followed the cases has a side business where he does LTC classes and basic/advanced civilian and police long gun classes. He wanted to find out what the law was really doing and wasn't surprised at what he found. People call him all the time asking for advice. He just tells them the reality of the law and tells them to make their own decisions. The Globe should do a Spotlight Series on how many people have been convicted of the assault weapons ban involving mere possession. I'll bet you will be able to count them on one hand.

 

Again not to sound like a hard-on, but why do we need a "spotlight" on any of this right now? PROSECUTORS have failed to ever use the 1976 Bartley-Fox gun law intent to punish CONVICTED CRIMINALS for decades. We don't need to give the AG an excuse to make criminals out of those of us who been in compliance with the LAW since 1998. I do LTC Classes for civilians too, and not as a "side". I swore to uphold and defend a certain set of rights, not to be selective, restrictive or elitist with them.

 

Maura Healy........
You guys do know her "Partner" is on the SJC if ever this crap gets that far?

 

Hey...here's Kathleen Kane, our Attorney General in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She's a Democrat, anti-gun and a real piece of work. Currently under indictment and is headed to trial on corruption charges. Her law license has been revoked yet she still is in office. Unlike yours she is a known serial sword swallower, seen here with an unidentified supporter.

 

Double

But it might explain some things.

 

OK so how many of you thin blue-line, oath swearing, constitution-defending people actually did anything to help with this issue???

 

Massachusetts AG releases new info on 'guns that are not assault weapons'

You heard it here first (probably). If you or your friends own a gun store or sell parts, accessories or service, STOCK UP ON MINI 14s and parts. Frankly I always liked them anyway

Sounds like a good excuse to by that M&P .22

 

I hate being the one to piss in your Cheerios, but it has NEVER been legal for a Mass dealer to transfer an 'assault weapon' to a current or retired LEO or anyone else for that matter.

Ch 140 sec 123 clearly states:

Sec 131M reads:

Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.
The legal possession of so-called 'assault weapons' by current and former LEOs does NOT imply that the dealer and personal transfer prohibitions somehow don't apply. And the fact that the AG doesn't understand the law does not make it legal either.

Do I think any dealers will ever get jacked by this? No. But the only legal way for a LEO to obtain an assault weapon for personal use would be to transfer one through and out of state dealer.

 

Key Changes to the Massachusetts Gun Laws - August 2014

Not to contradict your interpretation of the contradictory laws however; exactly two years ago today, the Mass Legislature made it clear that LEO's are EXEMPT from AWB and High cap feeding device madness. Maybe this was a CLARIFICATION in the LAW by the LEGISLATURE. (one of several that date.) Of course then Mighty Maura RE-INTERPRETED the SPECIFIC PARAMETERS identified in the legislation on that date, by being a contradictory and conflicting countess of convolution and confusion.
But now you come along and decide to confront and contaminate our cheerios with your convictions that also appear in conflict with conventional conclusions. (check the 14th bullet point on the list)

 

I'm well aware of the AG's bullet points and statements, but they do not constitute law or binding case law. My only point is that there's no statutory basis for the AG's determination that it is legal for dealers to sell AWs to LEOs - she made it up (no surprise there). The actual law is very clear. Yes, the legislature exempted LEOs from the AW possession BS. They did NOT exempt dealers from the transfer prohibition in section 123. Section 123 was unchanged. If you can find something in statute that contradicts the plain language of sec 123, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. You simply cannot infer the legality of one act (transfer) based upon the explicit legality of another (possession) in the face of clear statutory language to the contrary.

Do I think this makes a difference? No, because no dealer, or anyone else is every going to be prosecuted for transferring an AW to a LEO. Am I being pedantic? Yes, but when you deal with the actual law as opposed to someone's unofficial reading of it, you have to be precise.

I'll just add that the AG made a similar error of law in stating that ALL .22 rifles are NOT AWs. The statute clear exempts SOME .22 rifles, there's no basis in law for her assertion that ALL .22 rifles are exempt.

The AG gets an opinion on the in the form of discretionary prosecution, but she does not have binding legal authority to interpret the law. The courts have the final say. The AG can say it's okay for me to smash up my neighbor's car when his anti-theft alarm goes off at 3am every morning. That doesn't make it legal for me to do it.