Quote of the day—Warren Tolman

We were concerned about copycats and that if we tried to be too specific, that these people are very adept at figuring ways to get around (the law).

We wanted the law to be dynamic and evolving but aimed with the purpose to ban assault weapons.

Warren Tolman
Former Massachusetts Democratic state Senator.
Cosponsor of the 1998 law.
August 20, 2016
1994 Massachusetts law at center of assault weapons clash
[I think the title should be “1998…”, not “1994…” but that’s not important.

The important part is that non specific and “dynamic and evolving” are weasel words for “unconstitutionally vague”.

Update: Weer’d gives us the contradictions in the Massachusetts AG “clarification” letter.

And, as pointed out by Archer, don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

11 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Warren Tolman

  1. “Dynamic and evolving”?

    If you can’t clearly define /what/ makes the gun so dangerous it has to be banned
    then you’ve got a problem.

    Oh, and wanna take odds that this guy says the “slippery slope” fears
    are just paranoia?

    Nevermind that he’s openly saying that people should expect something that the
    state says isn’t a crime to have owned one year, could be deemed to be criminal to have owned, in the same time period, the following year, without any legislation being passed…
    and that it’s a /good thing/.

    That a law defining what makes something a felony to own was
    /intentionally/ vague.

  2. And here’s Weer’d talking about the AG’s “clarification” letter.

    http://www.weerdworld.com/2016/massachusetts-assault-weapons-debacle-schrodingers-gun/

    Where she doubles down and then goes right off a cliff….

    It starts when the Letter says that “Any Ruger Mini 14 or substantially-similar model weapon;” is kosher.

    “”
    Let that sink in she says “ANY” and is referencing it as a separate point from the list I just talked about. ANY, implies…well ANY rifle of that line…including folding-stock guns that were previously considered banned in the state.

    So what is it? Can I buy and M1A or Mini-14, or only Massachusetts compliant models? She’s already stated that “Massachusetts Compliant” is a completely bogus term, and that we shouldn’t be following the law the way it’s actually written, but how she has decided to enforce it….

    Also note the irony that she’s declaring legal rifles that are declared ILLEGAL in her supporting documents.

    it gets worse:
    “”

    But you’ll have to go to Weer’d page to see /how/ it gets worse.

    • Thanks Jack, I was about to link that too in reply Fred saying “The Rule of Law is Dead”.

      Indeed it is….NOWHERE in the Massachusetts or Federal law it was based on, is the Ruger Mini-14 or Springfield M1A was mentioned, those guns are just famous for “Ban Compliance” because they generally lack the features vilified by the Federal AWB.

      The same features Maura Healey claims are completely irrelevant.

      Also NOWHERE does the law reference caliber of any sort. Guns were determined to be “Assault Weapons” on Name, and name alone, or by Feature tests…..but somehow she’s declaring that .22 rifles are exempt.

      She’s simply “Seeing” text of the law that do not in any way, shape, or form exist in reality….but she has the power to suspend licences (either our permits to own guns, or a FFL’s state permit to conduct business) or to simply issue warrants and have us brought up on criminal charges.

      Again, for crimes outlines in NO LAW, except in her imagination.

      This is pure banana republic Anarchy!

  3. The important part is that non specific and “dynamic and evolving” are weasel words for “unconstitutionally vague”.

    The OTHER important part is, “Never let anyone tell you they don’t want to take your guns,” right?

  4. Rather than get into the specifics of what the AG says, or what MA state law says, or what is “similar” to this or that carbine, I’ll focus on the fact that we’re looking at blatant criminals in high office, depriving rights under color of law, and the fact that they’re not being prosecuted.

    What else matters? It’s like we’re being help up at gunpoint and we’re arguing over the robber’s mannerisms and the details of the robber’s tactics.. It’s a robber, goddammit, from a den of thieves! Stop them!

  5. “The important part is that ‘non-specific’ and ‘dynamic and evolving’ are weasel words for ‘unconstitutionally vague’”.

    I just recently read “Forsaken”, and among the many crimes one could be sent to the gulags for was “forming independent opinions.” There were others, too, but this was the most ridiculous and open to totalitarian abuse.

Comments are closed.