NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

This is Dave Young's Forum.
Can you really bridge the gap between reality and training? Between traditional karate and real world encounters? Absolutely, we will address in this forum why this transition is necessary and critical for survival, and provide suggestions on how to do this correctly. So come in and feel welcomed, but leave your egos at the door!
JOHN THURSTON
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
Contact:

NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

Post by JOHN THURSTON »

HI:

Because of the Mass. Atty. General's regulations no "cowboy shoot" (Colt, or coly clones, Vacqueros, etc.) can be "imported" in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

Therefore, unless you had purchased one of the above before March 1998, you can't get one from a dealer.

No Cowboys Wanted, I guess?

What to do?

(Also 'banned', 1911 clones, beretta, well, just about everything except S&W.)

Thought this might be considered a 'tough issue"

JT

------------------
Yondan2@aol.com
www.shiningpeace.com
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"
User avatar
LeeDarrow
Posts: 984
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Contact:

NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

Post by LeeDarrow »

JT-sama,

Whew!

Glad I don't live in Mass.

What about black powder? And real 1911's? And the Constitutional right to keep, etc?

While I do not own any firearms, I find this regulation rather disturbing!

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JOHN THURSTON:
HI:

Because of the Mass. Atty. General's regulations no "cowboy shoot" (Colt, or coly clones, Vacqueros, etc.) can be "imported" in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

Therefore, unless you had purchased one of the above before March 1998, you can't get one from a dealer.

No Cowboys Wanted, I guess?

What to do?

(Also 'banned', 1911 clones, beretta, well, just about everything except S&W.)

Thought this might be considered a 'tough issue"

JT

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Alan K
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Framingham, MA USA

NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

Post by Alan K »

Hi John,

I thought that the People's Republic was reserved only for Cambridge and Brookline, but now the Commonwealth of Massachusetts?

I thought it was bad yesterday when we heard about fast lane fascism. Was that part of the fast track court system?

Alan K
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

Post by Panther »

Folks,

The AG's regs have been in effect for about a year! Sure it's a tough issue, but for gun owners it's one that is old news. To answer some questions, NO 1911's PERIOD. NO black powder handguns that were not registered prior to March of 98 PERIOD. There are only a very small handful of handguns that have been "approved for sale" by the AGs office. As previously mentioned S&W. (Since they're in Springfield, MA... that would stand to reason.) A very, very, very limited number of SIGs. NO Glocks, NO HKs, NO Colts, NO Rugers unless they were registered in Massachusetts prior to March of 98 PERIOD. Basically, it is a defacto ban on new handguns and the AG knows it. What is worse is that if anyone (even State Legislators have asked and gotten the same answer) asks the AGs office to actually define what guns are OK or even just the criteria for a gun to be "OK", they refuse to answer. Basically the AG's office response is that if you sell one that "isn't" OK, then you'll get prosecuted. (10 years, $100,000 PER gun!)

The RKBA is dead as long as people don't realize that inalienable RIGHTS endowed upon us by our Creator Can NOT be infringed just because an American Facist Regime propagandizes that they are Priviledges granted to us at the whim of the State!

And now you know why I rant... and why I do it on the radio every Saturday AM.

The American public is all too willing to lay freedom and liberty upon the sacrificial table in exchange for security or safety. The examples bombard us on a daily basis and are too numerous to recount.

Gun control is one of the hallmarks of American Fascism. However, the more frightening aspect of this is the willingness of many American gun owners to submit to so-called reasonable gun control measures. To put it bluntly, there is no such thing as a reasonable gun control measure. In reality, all gun control measures seek in one way on another to deny an individual the right to protect their sovereign interests and their freedoms and liberty. The dangers here exist because of the acquiescence of the public of their rights and liberties again. In Fascist Germany, guns were not confiscated, instead, the people chose to cooperate with the rising oppressive tendency of their government.

This American Facism is running rampant across America. California, Massachusetts, Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and all the other bastions where the modern Statist gun grabbers congregate to devise further ways of eroding your inalienable Rights.

People often think that some of the things I suggest, espouse or even simply discuss are very radical... even "over the top". But the fact is that the only reason most people feel that way is because they've bought into the propaganda of modern American Facism.

Want to keep talking about this as a tough issue, go right ahead. I'll go dig out my Patriot's asbestos suit!



[This message has been edited by Panther (edited August 15, 2001).]
JOHN THURSTON
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
Contact:

NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

Post by JOHN THURSTON »

Yes,

Indeed I would like to discuss this further.

Can or could anyone but this State classify the handgun which served out military for 50* years as "unsafe"?

I have handled the "double action only" TACTICAL Smith & Wesson, and there, my friend, is an accident waiting to happen.

Ruger told the Commonwealth, in effect, t go poo in their hats.

I am stuck with 4 Vacquros I purchased leggally as a dealer, which i now cannot legally seller.

TO add insult (to my intellignce) to monetary injury, the AG said he would "work with the distributors" to take back "non-mass Compliant" guns.


YEah Right. ANd they think they might be able to recussitate Sacco & Vanzetti.

So, do we just bitch and moan or try a plan of action.

Panther: what time and frequency is your show?


JT

-PS: In answer to Lee San's Question, the regs only apply to items manufactured after March 1998.


Everything newer than that "is verboten" no PPK"|'s etc, etc..
Yondan2@aol.com www.shiningpeace.com
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"

[This message has been edited by JOHN THURSTON (edited August 15, 2001).]
User avatar
RACastanet
Posts: 3744
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA

NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

Post by RACastanet »

Wow... no Glocks, no 1911s. What do they think of the military Beretta M9s? They are everywhere there are military personnel.

Thank God I live in Virginia!

Rich
JOHN THURSTON
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
Contact:

NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

Post by JOHN THURSTON »

No Rich, it ain't easy being here on this point.

Add to that that they are going to put a "T" station in the North River Watershed (where the state and town pointedly did NOT allow me to do so much as pave a street).

It is aggravating in the extreme to see the State assume it can do what the citizen cannot-AND GET AWAY WITH IT CONSISTENTLY.
It's also more than a little frightening.
JT

------------------
Yondan2@aol.com
www.shiningpeace.com
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

Post by Panther »

Rich,

Barettas are OUT. No way... But don't worry, there are exemptions for LEO and military! Which I really can't understand, because if these are truly product safety regulations and if these are truly unsafe firearms, then why the #### do they think it's OK for LEOs and the military to have these dangerous and unsafe devices?!? Image Unless.... It's not about safety at all, but rather... Image

John,

Couldn't agree more concerning the "wetlands" BS. To paraphrase a person I know, "there may very well come a time where those who are oppressed will think of Carl Drega as a trendsetter." Image

<blockquote>America is at that awkward stage -- it's too late to work within the system and it's too early to shoot the bastards... Claire Wolfe</blockquote>

(Gawd, I love that woman! Image )
User avatar
LeeDarrow
Posts: 984
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Contact:

NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

Post by LeeDarrow »

WOW! So the issue in the legislative language is product safety?! Yet thay allow LEO and military to carry these weapons (as if they had ANY right to regulate what active duty military personnel under arms are to carry anyway!). Kind of refutes their own logic.

It will be interesting to see just what happens when someone goes for a serious legal challenge on this.

If, as has been said, the issue is product safety, then it should apply to LEO as well as civilians, otherwise the State, through deliberately discriminatory legislation, has placed a significant portion of the population at risk based on the language of their own statute!

I have a feeling the ACLU would have a field day with such a case. And believe me, they have their gun ownership advocates, too. I happen to know one.

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RACastanet:
Wow... no Glocks, no 1911s. What do they think of the military Beretta M9s? They are everywhere there are military personnel.

Thank God I live in Virginia!

Rich
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
T Rose
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 1998 6:01 am
Location: Marlboro,MA US
Contact:

NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

Post by T Rose »

so how about it? LeeDarrow hit it right on the head. Has there been any legal challenge to MA laws? why not? where is the ACLU now? They are the first to step up and protect the rights of Nazi groups to speak... so where are they now?

Is there any legal recourse? Civil rights violation? Has GOAL challenged this?

by banning the sale of 'unsafe' weapons, doesn't that imply that carrying or using such weapon <in self defense> implies negligence?

geeeze..

and I pay taxes for this SH*T
User avatar
Panther
Posts: 2807
Joined: Wed May 17, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Massachusetts

NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

Post by Panther »

First part of the problem/issue is that the former AG (Luther Scott Harshbarger) first came out with these proposed "product safety" regulations. (Before implementation, according to State law, any new AG regs must be shown to be necessary and go through public hearings.) At the time Harshbarger was running for Governor, but there was some pressure against these regs. In order to help their buddy out, the Dems in the Legislature "incorporated" the fundamentals of these regulations into Chapter 180. (You all remember that one... riiiight? The one where a different text was actually substituted and without having a chance to read it was pushed through under the threats of the Senate President and House Speaker, who said that anyone who voted against it would lose their committee chairmanship... a paycut amoung the lose of other perks...) Soooo... Harshbarger loses the Governor's race and Tom Reilly is elected to be AG. Now we have a certain set of product regulations codified as part of MGL. Good enough, and the gun manufacturers start working to comply. Then along comes the new AG looking to bolster his career and eyeing the corner office in a few years. He puts out yet another set of "consumer product safety" regulations on firearms that are not only vague, but which they haven't been able to show a need for and the "hearing" was one of those "midnight, we actually had a hearing, honest we did" types. Think it's UnConstitutional (both State and Federal)? Tell that to the dealers who've been harassed (a number right out of business) and fined the $10k per technical violation!

Lawsuit? Yep, GOAL filed one. The lower courts and then all the way to the SJC have held that GOAL as an organization (even representing gun owners), the numerous private citizens also listed as plaintiffs, as well as the dealers listed as plaintiffs, that NONE of them have standing! In the meantime, the gun manufacturers, being assaulted by lawsuits on numerous socialist fronts, had left this one to GOAL and the other plantiffs, but the Massachusetts courts ended up saying that "if only the manufacturers had been a party to it, then they would have maybe had standing." OK. That seems good enough, we just get some manufacturers to sign on and we have a case... right? WRONG! According to the courts, which kept delaying and dragging this out for over a year, the statute of limitations for the manufacturers to challenge a set of AG regs has passed! Image

ACLU? Pro-gun? In Massachusetts? That must be the local stuff you're smoking... (No offense, it's just a fact in the People's Supreme Democratic Republic of Massachusetts.)

LEO and military exemptions a problem? Not at all... The point obviously is not to disarm the government, but to only disarm "We, the People" as is the goal of any Facist regime.

Oh, and why can't/won't gun manufacturers just follow the regs for Massachusetts? Because they are different than CA or any other State and more importantly, the AG regs contradict and conflict with the regs in MGL as part of Chapter 180... That is, the AG regs that anyone has actually been able to get explained. Some of them even contradict themself AND some of them are worded that in order of the firearm to pass the reg it must be a firearm that is so unsafe that I'd never buy it! In fact, a few of the regs say a firearm must be "X" and in other regs (and as part of Chapter 180) there is language that says a firearm can NOT be "X"!

It is and has been a defacto BAN on new firearms in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for over a year. (BTW, under MGL definitions, a "firearm" is what the rest of the world refers to as a "handgun"... I've been using it here as the MGL definition, because in my legal study of this issue that's the way I think of the terminology... just wanted to clear up that area of potential confusion.)
JOHN THURSTON
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
Contact:

NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

Post by JOHN THURSTON »

Imagine my chagrin at the following scenario:

(Which I posted on my forum a while ago, but it's a good one):

The Danes, at the close of WWII, having been so obliging as to require complete registration of firearms before the war, were faced with German soldiers at their doors saying, in effect, where is this gun?

I am told that if the requested weapon was not produce, someone "disappeared".

After the war, therefore, the Danish army needed (as you might suspect) weapons, as did the British, who only missed the Danes fate by 22 nautical miles.

The first story is of the .38 Colt Military I picked up at auction which still had the "THANK YOU" tag from the Home Guard unit.

Tells me something.

The second, getting back to the Danes, is when they needed military weapons, Uncle Sam Magnanimously gave them, oh, perhaps 500,000 or so M-1's.

Now it is 50 of so years later and the Danes say, "well we don't need these donated m-1's any more, take them back. And, indeed some ended up in the hamds of the CMP.

Somehow, this return was stopped (???). The Danes were told they could not send or sell the M-1's in or to anyone in the US. So, the Danes began breaking down the M-1's and selling the parts here, which is now likewise banned.

Well, I found myself with 5-6 Danish "parts kits" and no receivers.

So, who sell me the receivers? The CMP FKA the DCM a former branch of the federal government.

Now if this doesn't confuse you, remember that until recently the US kept "tobacco subsidies" in full swing while warring against smoking and allowing tobacco products to be exported.

I think there is the odd Colombian who points his finger at our behaviour here, don't you?

JT

------------------
Yondan2@aol.com
www.shiningpeace.com
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"
User avatar
LeeDarrow
Posts: 984
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Contact:

NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

Post by LeeDarrow »

Panther-sama,

You nailed the issue cold when you mentioned the issue of conflicting regulations and law - remember the COnstitution's little ban on unenforceable laws?"

As to the ACLU, they ONLY get involved when someone comes to THEM with a case. Understand, folks, they are NOT a watchdog group, but an advocacy group for equal protection under the law, for ALL citizens. They do not just jump in on such things.

Because of the potential "abuse of power" issue and the seemingly questionable way in which 180 got passed - and that one makes even this jaded Illinois-person (you know - "vote early and often") sit back in amazement.

IMHO, the Supremes would probably not like the way this was done - but they also allowed the Republicans to run out the clock in Florida, making the last election seem more like an NBA finals match than a true count of votes, regardless of whose side you were on.

I still think there'a a valid challenge on the safety issue deal - make 'em follow their own rules - and watch a whole bunch of LEO types get REALLY ticked off at not being able to carry what they were issued or had to buy for the job.

Equal protection would seem to be a serious issue here. If the weapons blocked by the regs and laws are unsafe for civilians, then they are unsafe in ANY hands - QED. Move to force them to remove the exemptions for LEO and watch how quickly this deal collapses.

It would seem that attacking it from this angle would remove the statute of limitations issue. Public safety is the primary concern...right? Image It would also be the chink in their legal armor. It would also be the most obvious method of doing damage to this nonsense.

Remember - when dealing with politicians, there are several rules - 1 - hit them where they live, their seat. Hurt reelection chances and they will bend. 2 - no matter what a polotician is talking about, he's talking about money - YOURS! 3- Hit them where they also live - their wallets. DO something to make them unpopular with funding sources and they will bend.

Just a few comments from an out of stater who may be seriously uninformed.

Respectfully,

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
JOHN THURSTON
Posts: 2445
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 1998 6:01 am
Location: MARSHFIELD, MA. USA
Contact:

NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

Post by JOHN THURSTON »

Hi Lee:

When I tell you we have a serious problem here, I guess that pretty well sums it up.

Although the AG could not "legislate" anything by himself in terms of Gun Control, he is authorized to write (without Legislative or Gubernatorial review) regulations "pursuant" to the Consumer Protection act (MGL CH 93A).

Several Dealers here did start suit but were told by the courts that the AG was authorized to do what he did.

In fact, he is.

We're all much safer now, I'm sure.

JT

------------------
Yondan2@aol.com
www.shiningpeace.com
"All Enlightenment Gratefully Accepted"
User avatar
RACastanet
Posts: 3744
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA

NO COWBOYS WANTED 'ROUND HERE

Post by RACastanet »

Hello JT. I believe the exact number of M1s returned to the US was 20,000, which were immediately turned over to the CMP. I have a couple of them with Danish VAR barrels and they are great shooters.

As for receivers, there are a few US companies manufacturing 'USGI' spec receivers to eat up those parts kits. They are, however, cast and probably not going to be safe over the long haul. Perhaps I should order a receiver some time this year.

Another note, the National Matches at Camp Peary ate up all of the remaining CMP USGI clipped M2 Ball in the 280 round cans. I ordered two of the 400 boxed round cans as that will likely be gone forever before year end.

Rich
Post Reply

Return to “Realist Training”