SAF avoiding MASS.?
Results 1 to 4 of 4

SAF avoiding MASS.?

This is a discussion on SAF avoiding MASS.? within the Letters to the Editor (NON-USACarry.com) forums, part of the Main Category category; Here is the text of a second e-mail to SAF on the subject of MA. seeking to blow off the ...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Upper Connecticut River Valley
    Posts
    28

    Default SAF avoiding MASS.?

    Here is the text of a second e-mail to SAF on the subject of MA. seeking to blow off the Supreme Court and otherwise find a means to ban gun ownership through regulation of sale of even 'plain vanilla/chocolate' guns by means of legal manipulations and games.


    "As a SAF member, I would like to reiterate a point re. this alert (see below)

    This is almost exactly the same problem we face in MA., as I emailed SAF several months back. It goes so far (here) that a requisite 'mandatory' loaded chamber indicator (which is not described in any rule, regulation or statute) may be approved or rejected on the whim of the consumer safety group who oversee 'application of the standards'.

    If, for instance, they do not like the particular type of "lci" fitted by any manufacturer, they simply deny people in MA. the right to buy the gun. Nor is the manufacturer guided on how to avoid this outcome. Ditto any gun sold by any manufacturer that does not meet the states sometimes conflicting, often confusing, standards. Springfield Arms and Tangfolio/EEA are at least two of the firms that will not even try to sell handguns in MA. due to the nature of the AG approval process. Don't look for Kimber products, either, and the list goes on.

    (There is a published AG's list of guns "approved" for ownership and use in the state. There is also an unpublished, unavailable 'list' of guns that MAY be sold here. To know for sure, you have to ask for each model you are interested in or have a dealer who knows.)

    Please remember, too, in MA. you can ask the Atty. Gen. what a point in the regulations relative to any consumer product (save guns) means, and get a clarifying reply.

    If you ask the AG about a gun related issue, however, you are told to 'get a lawyer to give you an opinion on that'. Of course, the lawyer's opinion could still land you in jail if you follow it and it is not the same as the A.G.'s opinion! By the way, they give this same "ask a lawyer"
    advice to lawyers who are trying to make sense of the state law/rules.

    SAF is needed to intervene in the nonsensical situation in this state, as the majority of voters do not want to think about problems but only to be told what the "solution" is. I believe we are second only to California in statewide campaigns to insidiously circumvent the 2nd amendment and make it ever more difficult to purchase a gun (ammunition will soon follow?). " The MA. Gun Action League would be a possible point of contact on this.




    --- On Fri, 5/1/09, SAF Alerts <safalerts@liberty.seanet.com> wrote:

    From: SAF Alerts <safalerts@liberty.seanet.com>
    Subject: SAF, Calguns Foundation Challenges California Handgun Ban Scheme
    Date: Friday, May 1, 2009, 5:05 AM


    NEWS RELEASE
    SAF, CALGUNS FOUNDATION CHALLENGES CALIFORNIA HANDGUN BAN SCHEME
    BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and four California residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a California state law and regulatory scheme that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “certified” handguns approved by the State. This case parallels a similar case filed in Washington, DC, Hanson v. District of Columbia.

    California uses this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense, and a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The California scheme will eventually ban the purchase of almost all new handguns.

    Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, noted that California “tells Ivan Peña that his rights have an expiration date based on payment of a government fee. Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions,” he said. “A handgun protected by the Second Amendment does not need to appear on any government-approved list and cannot be banned because a manufacturer does not pay a special annual fee.”

    “The Para Ordnance P-13 was once approved for sale in California,” Peña noted, “but now that a manufacturer didn’t pay a yearly fee, California claims the gun I want to own has somehow become ‘unsafe’.”

    “The Glock-21 is the handgun I would choose for home defense, but California has decided the version I need is unacceptable. I was born without a right arm below my elbow and therefore the new ambidextrous version of the Glock-21 is the safest one for me. The identical model designed for right hand use is available in California, but I can’t use it,” said plaintiff Roy Vargas.

    Added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “The Supreme Court’s decision is crystal clear: Handguns that are used by people for self-defense and other lawful purposes cannot be banned, whether the State likes it or not. California needs to accept the Second Amendment reality.”

    Co-counsel Jason Davis remarked, “The California Handgun Roster has always been about making the possession of handguns for self defense more difficult by imposing arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions that limit choice and increase the cost of exercising a fundamental right.”

    Joining plaintiffs Peña and Vargas are Doña Croston and Brett Thomas. Doña Croston’s handgun would be allowed if it were black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly ‘unsafe’ merely based on color. “I didn’t realize that my constitutional rights depended on color. What is it about two colors that makes the gun I want to purchase ‘unsafe’?”

    Brett Thomas seeks to own the same model of handgun that the Supreme Court ordered District of Columbia officials to register for **** Heller. However, that particular model is no longer manufactured, and its maker is no longer available to process the handgun’s certification through the bureaucracy.

    “There is only one model of handgun that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled is protected by the Second Amendment and yet California will not allow me to purchase that gun,” said Mr. Thomas.

    “The so-called ‘safe’ gun list is just another gun-grabbing gimmick,” said co-counsel Donald Kilmer. “California can’t get around the Second Amendment, as incorporated, by declaring most normal guns ‘unsafe,’ and gradually shrinking the number of so-called ‘safe’ guns to zero.”


    These Dogs Don't Hunt: The Democrats' War on Guns

    This book is a must read for every gun owner concerned about the election results.
    Buy now at a discount
    from Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more


    < Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >

    Copyright © 2009 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.
    Second Amendment Foundation
    James Madison Building
    12500 N.E. Tenth Place
    Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-7012
    Toll Free: 800-426-4302
    FAX: 425-451-3959
    email: InformationRequest@saf.org
    "There are two kinds of people in this world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in this world and those who know better." (T.Robbins)

  2. #2
    American ME!'s Avatar
    American ME! is offline Armored Saint
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Dallas/Fort Worth
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by llama View Post
    Here is the text of a second e-mail to SAF on the subject of MA. seeking to blow off the Supreme Court and otherwise find a means to ban gun ownership through regulation of sale of even 'plain vanilla/chocolate' guns by means of legal manipulations and games.


    "As a SAF member, I would like to reiterate a point re. this alert (see below)

    This is almost exactly the same problem we face in MA., as I emailed SAF several months back. It goes so far (here) that a requisite 'mandatory' loaded chamber indicator (which is not described in any rule, regulation or statute) may be approved or rejected on the whim of the consumer safety group who oversee 'application of the standards'.

    If, for instance, they do not like the particular type of "lci" fitted by any manufacturer, they simply deny people in MA. the right to buy the gun. Nor is the manufacturer guided on how to avoid this outcome. Ditto any gun sold by any manufacturer that does not meet the states sometimes conflicting, often confusing, standards. Springfield Arms and Tangfolio/EEA are at least two of the firms that will not even try to sell handguns in MA. due to the nature of the AG approval process. Don't look for Kimber products, either, and the list goes on.

    (There is a published AG's list of guns "approved" for ownership and use in the state. There is also an unpublished, unavailable 'list' of guns that MAY be sold here. To know for sure, you have to ask for each model you are interested in or have a dealer who knows.)

    Please remember, too, in MA. you can ask the Atty. Gen. what a point in the regulations relative to any consumer product (save guns) means, and get a clarifying reply.

    If you ask the AG about a gun related issue, however, you are told to 'get a lawyer to give you an opinion on that'. Of course, the lawyer's opinion could still land you in jail if you follow it and it is not the same as the A.G.'s opinion! By the way, they give this same "ask a lawyer"
    advice to lawyers who are trying to make sense of the state law/rules.

    SAF is needed to intervene in the nonsensical situation in this state, as the majority of voters do not want to think about problems but only to be told what the "solution" is. I believe we are second only to California in statewide campaigns to insidiously circumvent the 2nd amendment and make it ever more difficult to purchase a gun (ammunition will soon follow?). " The MA. Gun Action League would be a possible point of contact on this.




    --- On Fri, 5/1/09, SAF Alerts <safalerts@liberty.seanet.com> wrote:

    From: SAF Alerts <safalerts@liberty.seanet.com>
    Subject: SAF, Calguns Foundation Challenges California Handgun Ban Scheme
    Date: Friday, May 1, 2009, 5:05 AM


    NEWS RELEASE
    SAF, CALGUNS FOUNDATION CHALLENGES CALIFORNIA HANDGUN BAN SCHEME
    BELLEVUE, WA and REDWOOD CITY, CA – The Second Amendment Foundation, The Calguns Foundation and four California residents today filed a lawsuit challenging a California state law and regulatory scheme that arbitrarily bans handguns based on a roster of “certified” handguns approved by the State. This case parallels a similar case filed in Washington, DC, Hanson v. District of Columbia.

    California uses this list despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last summer that protects handguns that ordinary people traditionally use for self-defense, and a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. The California scheme will eventually ban the purchase of almost all new handguns.

    Attorney Alan Gura, representing the plaintiffs in this case, noted that California “tells Ivan Peña that his rights have an expiration date based on payment of a government fee. Americans are not limited to a government list of approved books, or approved religions,” he said. “A handgun protected by the Second Amendment does not need to appear on any government-approved list and cannot be banned because a manufacturer does not pay a special annual fee.”

    “The Para Ordnance P-13 was once approved for sale in California,” Peña noted, “but now that a manufacturer didn’t pay a yearly fee, California claims the gun I want to own has somehow become ‘unsafe’.”

    “The Glock-21 is the handgun I would choose for home defense, but California has decided the version I need is unacceptable. I was born without a right arm below my elbow and therefore the new ambidextrous version of the Glock-21 is the safest one for me. The identical model designed for right hand use is available in California, but I can’t use it,” said plaintiff Roy Vargas.

    Added SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, “The Supreme Court’s decision is crystal clear: Handguns that are used by people for self-defense and other lawful purposes cannot be banned, whether the State likes it or not. California needs to accept the Second Amendment reality.”

    Co-counsel Jason Davis remarked, “The California Handgun Roster has always been about making the possession of handguns for self defense more difficult by imposing arbitrary and unconstitutional restrictions that limit choice and increase the cost of exercising a fundamental right.”

    Joining plaintiffs Peña and Vargas are Doña Croston and Brett Thomas. Doña Croston’s handgun would be allowed if it were black, green, or brown, but her bi-tone version is supposedly ‘unsafe’ merely based on color. “I didn’t realize that my constitutional rights depended on color. What is it about two colors that makes the gun I want to purchase ‘unsafe’?”

    Brett Thomas seeks to own the same model of handgun that the Supreme Court ordered District of Columbia officials to register for **** Heller. However, that particular model is no longer manufactured, and its maker is no longer available to process the handgun’s certification through the bureaucracy.

    “There is only one model of handgun that the Supreme Court has explicitly ruled is protected by the Second Amendment and yet California will not allow me to purchase that gun,” said Mr. Thomas.

    “The so-called ‘safe’ gun list is just another gun-grabbing gimmick,” said co-counsel Donald Kilmer. “California can’t get around the Second Amendment, as incorporated, by declaring most normal guns ‘unsafe,’ and gradually shrinking the number of so-called ‘safe’ guns to zero.”


    These Dogs Don't Hunt: The Democrats' War on Guns

    This book is a must read for every gun owner concerned about the election results.
    Buy now at a discount
    from Amazon.com: Online Shopping for Electronics, Apparel, Computers, Books, DVDs & more


    < Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family >

    Copyright © 2009 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.
    Second Amendment Foundation
    James Madison Building
    12500 N.E. Tenth Place
    Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-7012
    Toll Free: 800-426-4302
    FAX: 425-451-3959
    email: InformationRequest@saf.org
    This so shameful and disgusting. So many events leading up to our freedoms that we have(still) took place in this historic part of the nation only to be usurped, defamed, and demolished by the likes of Kennedy, Kerry, and many other traitors in the same cesspool that needs to be pumped out and disinfected!
    An ARMED individual is a CITIZEN! ...An UNARMED individual is a SUBJECT!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Stockton Springs Maine. Originally from Vinalhaven Maine
    Posts
    36

    Default Massachusetts is a world unto itself

    Massachusetts laws and regulations, and finding ways to circumvent any mandatory compliance with a law or rule that they,[they meaning the arrogant elected mostly democrat senators and reps] are second to none, with the possible exception of California, New Jersey, and The District.
    Anyone who is old enough to remember when the law went into effect in the early 1970's allowing right tuns on red lights, if you were in Massachusetts at the time will remember this. Ma did not agree with the law. However when they were threatened with federal highway funds cutoff for not implementing the law, their response was to use the part of the law that allowed states to post "no right turn on red"signs at certain intersections. The only thing is, they posted these signs at 99.99% of all intersections in the state. I'm sure at a substantial cost to taxpayers. Eventually the signs came down, but not until after much bickering and carrying on about how many accidents etc. this will cause.
    Now fast forward to the present. I'm sure if the day comes when much needed reciprocity is enacted making it mandatory for one state to recognize another states concealed carry license, Massachusetts will once again balk and create their own rules, such as saying, okay, we will recognize your permit, but 99.99% of the guns in existence at the time the law is passed, will be outlawed for concealed carry by non residents.
    One more thing: It's only been in the past couple years that Ma finally through in the towel and was forced to recognize section 926a of the McClure-Volkmer act. Prior to that, it was stated that BEFORE you entered the Commonwealth, you had to obtain a transport license just to pass through the state. What I don't understand is why do the people in Ma keep voting these knuckleheads into office?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    MA, Away from the liberal loonies...
    Posts
    2,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dootman View Post
    Massachusetts laws and regulations, and finding ways to circumvent any mandatory compliance with a law or rule that they,[they meaning the arrogant elected mostly democrat senators and reps] are second to none, with the possible exception of California, New Jersey, and The District.
    Anyone who is old enough to remember when the law went into effect in the early 1970's allowing right tuns on red lights, if you were in Massachusetts at the time will remember this. Ma did not agree with the law. However when they were threatened with federal highway funds cutoff for not implementing the law, their response was to use the part of the law that allowed states to post "no right turn on red"signs at certain intersections. The only thing is, they posted these signs at 99.99% of all intersections in the state. I'm sure at a substantial cost to taxpayers. Eventually the signs came down, but not until after much bickering and carrying on about how many accidents etc. this will cause.
    Now fast forward to the present. I'm sure if the day comes when much needed reciprocity is enacted making it mandatory for one state to recognize another states concealed carry license, Massachusetts will once again balk and create their own rules, such as saying, okay, we will recognize your permit, but 99.99% of the guns in existence at the time the law is passed, will be outlawed for concealed carry by non residents.
    One more thing: It's only been in the past couple years that Ma finally through in the towel and was forced to recognize section 926a of the McClure-Volkmer act. Prior to that, it was stated that BEFORE you entered the Commonwealth, you had to obtain a transport license just to pass through the state. What I don't understand is why do the people in Ma keep voting these knuckleheads into office?
    Most,but not all who reside here are knuckleheads as well. I have found that they tend to vote for their kind.

    We are in the process of rebuilding... Rome wasn't (blah blah blah)... Stay tuned, more to come.

    Peace...
    You can give peace a chance alright..

    I'll seek cover in case it goes badly..

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •