how do you interpret this...
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: how do you interpret this...

  1. #1
    HKPRO Professional

    Join Date : Feb 2011
    Location : MA
    Posts : 432
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default how do you interpret this...

    I live in ma, the great state of strict gun laws. The great Cadillac Devalued is tried to change the language of ma laws. How would you guys interpret this:
    SECTION 24. Said section 131M of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out, in line 3, the word “1994.” and inserting in place thereof the following words:- 1994; or (ii) a large capacity feeding device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition; or (iii) a large capacity feeding device that such person lawfully possessed before the effective date of this act that has a capacity of, or that can readily be restored or converted to accept, more than seven but no more than ten rounds of ammunition, where such device contains more than seven rounds of ammunition.”
    SECTION 25. Said section 131M of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by adding the following paragraph:-
    Any large capacity feeding device that has or can readily be restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of this act must be sold or otherwise lawfully disposed of within one year of the act’s effective date. Such large capacity feeding devices may only be sold or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapons.

  2. #2
    Very Senior Member

    Join Date : Jan 2012
    Posts : 264
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    It sounds like like the NY law, where if the Magazine hold more than 10 gotta get rid of it, if it holds up to 10 you can have but better not put 8,9,or 10 rounds in it. New magazines can't be purchased unless they have counts of 8 or less.

  3. #3
    Member

    Join Date : Oct 2012
    Location : free state of Idaho
    Posts : 69
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MassBan View Post
    I live in ma, the great state of strict gun laws. The great Cadillac Devalued is tried to change the language of ma laws. How would you guys interpret this:
    SECTION 24. Said section 131M of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out, in line 3, the word “1994.” and inserting in place thereof the following words:- 1994; or (ii) a large capacity feeding device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition; or (iii) a large capacity feeding device that such person lawfully possessed before the effective date of this act that has a capacity of, or that can readily be restored or converted to accept, more than seven but no more than ten rounds of ammunition, where such device contains more than seven rounds of ammunition.”
    SECTION 25. Said section 131M of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by adding the following paragraph:-
    Any large capacity feeding device that has or can readily be restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of this act must be sold or otherwise lawfully disposed of within one year of the act’s effective date. Such large capacity feeding devices may only be sold or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapons.

    it's political double speak. translated it says: "While recognizing our own inherant superiourity, and the need to protect ourselves and our own, we do not pretend to conferr that upon you, our unwashed servant masses. with this legislation, we, your masters, are allowing you, are servants, to keep some of your arms, for now. when we're ready for the rest we'll let you know". that's about it in a nut shell, don't let anybody tell you different.


    LIVE FREE

  4. Remove Advertisements
    HKPro.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Junior Member

    Join Date : Jan 2013
    Location : SoCal
    Posts : 48
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MassBan View Post
    I live in ma, the great state of strict gun laws.

    Any large capacity feeding device that has or can readily be restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of this act must be sold or otherwise lawfully disposed of within one year of the act’s effective date. Such large capacity feeding devices may only be sold or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapons.

    Sounds like it's time for a lawsuit.

    The state can't declare an item that was legally purchased by law abiding citizens to now be illegal and subject to confiscation.

    That's a huge line they'd be crossing and would open up a very slippery slope. What would be next ?

    The state can legally declare that no new items may be purchased that are now declared illegal, but to retroactively declare the mags illegal feels like it should be easily overturned.

    Someone needs to file an injunction to nip this in the bud.

    Are there any MA groups similar to CalGuns ? I'd get in touch with them, contribute, etc. Same thing with the Second Amendment Foundation.

  6. #5
    Very Senior Member
    Batman1's Avatar
    Join Date : May 2011
    Location : Gotham(Communist CA)
    Posts : 368
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Gotta love how they put all the responsibility on YOU but make sure the normal Joe can't understand what is written.

  7. #6
    HKPRO Professional
    trigger96's Avatar
    Join Date : Nov 2010
    Location : Houston, TX
    Posts : 206
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Sounds great where do we start?


    Quote Originally Posted by skyhook View Post
    Sounds like it's time for a lawsuit.

    The state can't declare an item that was legally purchased by law abiding citizens to now be illegal and subject to confiscation.

    That's a huge line they'd be crossing and would open up a very slippery slope. What would be next ?

    The state can legally declare that no new items may be purchased that are now declared illegal, but to retroactively declare the mags illegal feels like it should be easily overturned.

    Someone needs to file an injunction to nip this in the bud.

    Are there any MA groups similar to CalGuns ? I'd get in touch with them, contribute, etc. Same thing with the Second Amendment Foundation.

  8. #7
    Desperately Needs Treatment
    04TAC40's Avatar
    Join Date : Oct 2008
    Location : SE MN
    Age : 33
    Posts : 1,214
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I am from Minnesota, we are not quite as constricting as many other states (mainly on the East Coast) but our Republican state is transitioning into a Democratic state as we speak (after recent elections). I am all about individual civil liberties based SOLELY on the Constitution of the U.S. and the Bill of Rights. Where these politicians come off thinking they are above that document totally amazes me. But its getting old! The transparency has gotten to a point where "I see right thru them." I can literally see whats coming before it happens. Its scary! This indeed is a step over the line! I want you all to know (AND I TRULY HOPE YOU ARE ALL DOING THE SAME AND NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT IT!), I am fighting for all my fellow law abiding citizens Nationwide state-to-state. Any and all petitions for each individual state regarding these unconstitutional ideals is getting signed by my Minnesota native name. In the name of TRUE REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY!
    ~Live & let Die~

Sponsored Links

 
 

Posting Permissions

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

Search tags for this page

calguns gun laws 2013

,
mass law section24 chapter 140 131m
,
or can readily berestored orconverted to accept , more than ten rounds
,
section 25. said section 131m of chapter 140
,
t hat has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition
,
what does readily restored or converted to accept more than
Click on a term to search for related topics.