First they came for the CommunistsAnd I did not speak outBecause I was not a CommunistThen they came for the SocialistsAnd I did not speak outBecause I was not a SocialistThen they came for the trade unionistsAnd I did not speak outBecause I was not a trade unionistThen they came for the JewsAnd I did not speak outBecause I was not a JewThen they came for meAnd there was no one leftTo speak out for me -
The Second Amendment protects ownership of ALL arms .. if we wish to live in a 'free state'.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Gun owners in Massachusetts are running into all kinds of problems as they attempt to deal with Attorney General Maura Healey’s unilateral decision to ban hundreds of previously legal firearms by reinterpreting a 1998 law.
Boston Herald reported that Healey is taking a new approach to enforcing the law, which mirrors the federal assault weapons ban which expired in 2004, to keep gun makers from producing state-compliant versions of the rifles on the ban list.
Wimpy HEALEY sez:
"I would gladly ban you tomorrow for a gun that is legal today!"
What we have here is an 'ex post facto law', which means that you (gun owner) are penalized today for some act you legally performed yesterday (bought a firearm); because Healey says that you have purchased an object which, although legal when you bought it, is no longer legal. So you are liable to awful penalties.
Because ... Healey.
There are flies all over this reeking pile of doggie-doo, and only the people who might be directly affected by this the proposed law are calling "SHAME!" on it.
PERSONAL NOTE: I once had an RTO (Radio-Telephone Operator) named Healey working for me, who proved his courage by calmly continuing to maintain contact with 'higher authorities' under direct fire as I was crying for illumination (flares from Base Camp Artillery) during a fire-fight. He got through, directed adjustment for consecutive Artillery Flares so we could see what we were shooting at, and was entirely unruffled during the entire kerfuffle. I hope he is not related to the Healey-creature in question, because I thought he was an exemplary individual.
(Massachusetts Attorney General Maura) Healey’s office continues attempt at re-writing law for MA Legislature via her “Enforcement Notice”. In the last 24 hours a new page has shown up on Attorney General Healey’s website, titled “Guns That Are Not Assault Weapons”.
8/19 Update: The Q&A page has been updated again today, and incredibly, adds to the confusion and worse, adds new “enforcements”. Here are the questions, just added. We now know that the AG’s office has limited knowledge of both firearms and MA law pertaining to them.
It’s no surprise the Orlando killer chose an AR-15 style assault rifle. It’s a weapon of war, originally created for combat, and designed to kill many people in a short amount of time with incredible accuracy. It’s in the same category as weapons chosen by killers in Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino. These are not weapons of self-defense. They are weapons used to commit mass murder. And they have no business being in civilian hands.
So Boston finally clicked that the rifle used in Orlando wasn't actually an "AR-15", but it was an "AR-15 style assault rifle". Given that the AR-15 is the semi-automatic version of a rifle with a pitiful 5.56mm caliber bullet, and is not select fire (as is the M16) .. aka "Poodle Shooter", I suppose that it's perfectly reasonable that journalists who have never touched a firearm can reliably identify and define a "Weapon Used To Commit Mass Murder".
Some call her one thing; some call her another. Some say she's turning legal firearms owners into "felons in waiting" because of what some may consider her imposition of "Ex Post Facto" laws:
So if I am, what are you?
I'm just guessing here ... call me crazy ... but I have a .22 caliber rifle with a scope. It's a semi-automatic tube-fed rifle, which holds 10 round in the tube.
Would it be ridiculous of me to think I own an "Assault Rifle"?
Yes, it would.
Is my .22 rifle a 'weapon of war'?
According to the Boston Globe ... yes, it is. And I'm a "Gun Nut", a Neanderthal blow-back, a villain and a potential mass murderer: all for wanting to pay $200 for an "Assault Rifle"!
Okay, I over-paid, but it has a nice 4x scope, was in as-new condition, and I gave all of my other .22 rifles away to my kids ... my "Arsenal" (the coat closet in my front room) had a gap which needed to be filled. Besides, I have two bricks of .22 LR ammo in my coat closet arsenal, and somebody needs to pay homage to my sagacity in finding and buying these blocks of "Kop Killer Bullets"! before BuyMart sold them to some more sanguine gun nut.
(If there are any hunters arsenal owners in this state who are more blood-thirsty than I. Which I doubt, because although I haven't gone hunting since my Father died in 1994, I'm still sitting on the arsenal in my ... well, you know. Coat closet.)
[Apologies for the digression, but you know I'm a gun owner and every time I start talking about GUNS and AMMO, I get this little tingle up my leg and ... uh ... you don't want to know. 'Kay?]
The Good News is that I don't live in Massachusetts (which state I can't even SPELL right!), because no matter what I do, no matter what I say, no matter what I own ... I'm wrong.
More than wrong.
I'm bad.
More than bad! (What's more than bad? I don't know, but if I own a firearm in Massachusetts, I'm really a horrible person. Because I still cleave to my guns and my second amendment God.)
Okay, I'm done. And I hope you ignore that "Thrill Up My Leg" moment.
I only have it when I think about B.O.
Me and Chris Matthews. Y'know?
And yes, if you find this entire article to be "incomprehensible", you're not alone.
I don' understand it, either.
