Massachusetts Sneak Legal Attack on Gun Owners and Dealers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ellsnjel

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
86
Location
Florida
Assault weapon double think

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html

So apparently Massachusetts is changing what qualifies as an assault weapon in their state. Interestingly, in this article by the state attorney general, she admits banned features like telescoping stocks and flash hiders do nothing to enhance the lethality of the weapon.

If They admit this is the case then the argument for banning assault weapons in the first place evaporates.
 
Facts aren't apparat of their case in the first place. Speculation, ignorance, and emotion are all they've ever had. And when presented with facts, they revert back to fallacies and rhetoric. The mere fact the argument even has legs shows the ignorance of the people who elected and support them. It's scary. But it's not all their fault. Some people don't know any better than to believe what they see on the news or read on Facebook. They are products of their environments and the period in which we live.
 
FBI report for 2014 shows 248 deaths by rifles.
All types of rifles ; M1 Garands, muzzleloaders, and the dreaded AR platform weapons.
Looked at another way, about twice this many died by carbon monoxide poisoning.
 
Looked at another way, about twice this many died by carbon monoxide poisoning.

Far more die from inhalation of the deadly dihydrogen monoxide, a chemical found in all our lakes and rivers!

Thanks to Penn & Teller for pointing this out! :)
 
The next time their ban is challenged in court, they should reference this article since the attorney general says the features don't make the weapon more lethal what is the justification for banning it
 
Typical recent annual FBI UCR report lists about 800 homicides by assailants using "personal weapons" - hands, elbows, knees, feet. Unarmed assailants like Mike Brown at Ferguson MO can kill, and do kill morenper year than people with rifles.

The problem is people who assault, not so called "assault weapons". Crime takes an actor with motiive, opportunity, and means. An means can be substituted.
 
What a despicable little tyrant. While it was difficult to get through that, here's my takeaway.

First and foremost, their attorney general, and anyone ignorant enough to vote for her, needs to go back to grammar school. "They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon." Word to the wise liberal: if you don't have a good grasp on the English language, then you probably don't want to be commenting on complex sociopolitical issues; or you're likely to just make a big ass of yourself.

Secondly, this article, and many others like it in the past months, are the next stage of the gun grabber agenda. They're coming out with the fact that they were never after "assault rifles," but rather that they're gunning for all semi automatic weapons.

Thirdly, "weapons of war" is being used to replace assault rifle because that term has been so thoroughly discredited that it's now a joke. But again, they're focusing on cosmetics because it's the only thing they have. Their entire argument to the public is, "it looks scary and should therefore be illegal."

In conclusion, they're still giving the public the old emotional cattle prod to get support for gun control. BUT, when it comes to legislation, they're fully admitting that cosmetic criteria don't make one iota of difference, and are therefore fully admitting that their agenda is to ban all semi automatic firearms.
 
Wow. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when they drafted that nonsense. As far as I know the Street Sweeper is already on the NFA list as a "destructive device" (still not sure how they got away with that one).

And the Tec-22 for crying out loud?! If I could pick any gun to go up against in a gunfight, it would be the Tec-22. I can't think of a more useless gun ever made. You would be infinitely better off just sawing down a 10/22 and cutting off the stock. At least then it would be reliable.
 
Massachusetts Legal Attack: Sweeping Gun Ban Enacted

For those of you yet to hear the Mass AG just declared war on all Mass FFLs and gun owners who own AR-15s. The AG has reinterpreted the state's AWB to mean copies and duplication of banned guns. This basically outlaws all firearms that have a detachable magazine. This is no joke as it was a coordinated sneak attack on us with a press conference and letters delivered to all FFLs in the state to cease and desist selling AR15 style weapons. Many FFLs have caved and are following the orders. Others are seeking legal counsel. This is a major move by gun grabbers that have caught GOAL and the NRA by complete surprise. This will just be the first move. Other anti gun state AGs will move on this as well. Keep vigilant!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion...weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html

http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/assault-weapons-guidance.pdf
 
Last edited:
Just got this from GOAL.

Massachusetts Attorney General Unilaterally Changes Gun Laws

http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/awbe.html



Without any prior notice or public hearings and while the legislature is on break for national conventions the Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura Healey, has issued an "Enforcement Notice" to firearm retailers throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts changing the longstanding definition of so-called "Assault Weapons".

For nearly 18 years since the passage of the 1998 Gun Control Act firearm retailers, gun owners and state agencies have been operating under the same interpretation. Now, suddenly, without warning or any due process a single person with a clear political agenda decides to change the rules. All Massachusetts residents should be alarmed!

GOAL is currently trying to decipher the enforcement letter, but with as much information that it contains, it is not very clear what it means. Statements such as the following make it very convoluted: "... a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons."

Virtually every semi-automatic that utilizes a detachable magazine has the same operating system or firing mechanism, so what does this mean? The short answer is we simply don't know. Our best advice to firearm retailers for now is to err on the side of caution. These new rules may cover a lot more than just what we might think.

GOAL is working with people and groups around the State and the nation to clarify these new interpretations and decide the best course of action. One thing is certain that this new interpretation is purely a political stunt and has nothing to do with public safety or real law.



Jim Wallace
Executive Director
 
That would even ban .22 LR AR-15 lookalikes. They share the same lower and fire control group. Then think of how many guns are now using AR furniture. I even saw a lever action that had a carbine receiver extension so the end user could use whatever stock they wanted.
 
It can be interpreted to mean everything from ARs, AKs right down to 10/22s. Major ban enacted overnight. This was planned and meticulously put together right at the end of the legislative session.
 
Oh boy,

It seems the AG has really thought this one through. She leaves a lot of grey areas. It would be hard to interpret the specifics but not her intent.

Condolences to all who reside in Massachusetts.
 
The mold is made.
We don't have to pass laws or get court decisions, we just issue directives.
Most of B. Hussein's "executive orders" are actually pretty bland and just restating existing law and policy like he had invented it, but this JBC (That is Jack Booted Chick) has figured out how to make it bite.
 
They've graduated from banning arbitrary lists of machines in common use, to banning entire classes of machines in common use, to entire classes of technologies in common use. Think for a moment, about where we'd be now if opponents of the Cotton Gin had succeeded in banning it on the (entirely legitimate) grounds it was too destructive to the competitiveness of slaveholding farm owners & wages of free manual laborers? Or smokeless powders, for making guns too powerful & long-ranged against unarmored police carrying pistols? Or encryption? This is a very dark and dangerous path the AG is embarking on.

Next step will be going after the very means to produce firearms, to include tools or mere technical information.

So, who is picking up their Mini-14 or not-an-AR15-AR15, walking down to the local police station (or AG's office) and demanding they be arrested for possession? Preferably with a number of others. The judge can sort out whether the gun was indeed purchased before Wednesday after it is determined whether this abortion of prosecutorial malfeasance is even worthy of a courtroom (let alone a jury).

Or will we be complying with this latest humiliating injustice, as well? It'd be nice if the staff here could have a private meeting with each other and determine exactly when they will begin allowing open discussion of civil disobedience as these laws rapidly accelerate in both scope & enforcement. Maybe even post a sticky in Activism on when civil disobedience is or is not justified, how to go about it in a justifiable manner, and which laws are presently deserving of coordinated dishonor.

It would be hard to interpret the specifics but not her intent.
On the contrary, this type of sweeping ban is far easier to interpret and even enforce from the state's point of view, and actually performs the task previous bans have failed to do. Its honest consistency is almost refreshing, from a certain standpoint; if it uses gas, recoil, or breech pressure to automatically eject & load a cartridge, it is illegal (since every conceivable design 'type' has already been used to develop either a machinegun or submachinegun with >30 round capacity). Every blowback pistol-cal carbine, every DI AR (since no one else every copied it :p), every long-stroke piston rifle, every short-stroke piston rifle, every M1 Garand family rifle, every recoil-operated rifle or LMG-clone, every roller-delayed blowback, every gas-delayed rifle that could be developed, any possible semi-auto conversion of a manual turn-bolt gun, even the ancient Martini-Henry and Winchester lever actions (Madsen LMG and Browning's prototype machine gun)

It has always been about banning semi-autos with these people, which is why they previously tried to identify all features they associated with semi-automatic rifles that were not shared by 'Fudd' guns.

I know we always represent these lawmakers as "scared of black guns" and therefore too stupid to see past bayonet lugs & folding stocks when crafting legislation, the truth of the matter is that exemptions were made for BARs and Mini-14s so as to not scare all the Fudds that were otherwise eager for gun banning, themselves. The few Fudds are now gone, utterly marginalized by gun banners and pro-gun people alike, assuming they haven't fallen whole-hog into either category, which is why we now see the push to ban entire classes of technology, rather than 'undesirable' examples of it.

It's all about restricting the peoples' access to effective arms.

TCB
 
Last edited:
I know we always represent these lawmakers as "scared of black guns" and therefore too stupid to see past bayonet lugs & folding stocks when crafting legislation

The interesting part here is that the AG and her office did this without legislative support. They deliberately waited until the end of the Mass legislative session and the representatives and senators are getting ready to leave on summer break. The few pro gun legislators are actually pretty pissed about that, so maybe a silver lining. Though not sure there are enough of them to do any good.
 
Well, this is most interesting. . . at least for law dorks like me.

I've never looked very far into Massachusetts law, so I may shoot wide of the goal on some of these marks. That said, here are my first impressions:

For years, we (gun owners) have complained about, and made fun of, AWB-type laws because they banned whole classes of firearms based on largely cosmetic features. Barrel shrouds, "shoulder things that go up," and all of that. On that note, this might be a "be careful what you wish for" kind of moment. Like it or not, she actually gets down to the nuts and bolts of mechanisms in this "enforcement directive." For example,
Similarity Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if its internal functional components are substantially similar in construction and configuration to those of an Enumerated Weapon. Under this test, a weapon is a Copy or Duplicate, for example, if the operating system and firing mechanism of the weapon are based on or otherwise substantially similar to one of the Enumerated Weapons.

Interchangeability Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if it has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an Enumerated Weapon. A receiver will be treated as the same as or interchangeable with the receiver on an Enumerated Weapon if it includes or accepts two or more operating components that are the same as or interchangeable with those of an Enumerated Weapon. Such operating components may include, but are not limited to: 1) the trigger assembly; 2) the bolt carrier or bolt carrier group; 3) the charging handle; 4) the extractor or extractor assembly; or 5) the magazine port.

I get the impression that: (1) she's done her homework; and (2) she's spoiling for a fight. I suspect that it was prompted by something along these lines.
 
Enumerated Weapon
At one time we 'enumerated' most of the stuff the .gov couldn't do, rather than the few things they'd let us do...I guess once you have enough power, it's easier to brand everything that's not yours :p

Need to do some research, but those tests sound remarkably familiar...to how the ATF distinguishes semi-autos from full-autos. :uhoh: Would love to see if they had a hand in lobbying this (a FOIA betwixt her office & local/national ATF branch would likely be illuminating, as there is no way the Tech Branch wasn't at least consulted)

Have to say, it is odd that 'charging handle' and 'extractor' were added, but not barrel. Very odd choice of item completely irrelevant to function, there. Potentially brilliant, though; not hardly ANY semi-autos on that list with equivalents that don't use the same bolt head AND charging handle (heck, even the ultra-neutered HK guns like the SL8 still used the same handle & extractor on their 'trimmed' bolt head)

I don't see any sort of consideration for the disconnect between treating the "receiver" as the assault weapon to be classified (permanently, same as with NFA items), and the fact that their list of items may or may not have anything to do with it. Swapping between standard & side-charging uppers, for instance (sounds like they're forcing AR owners into a tactically-superior layout :neener:)

They also say "weapon" not "rifle," so are we sure this doesn't apply to handguns? Or won't, shortly?

Do the 'common' components have to be common to the same gun? Would my UMP-lower/MP5-upper mutt build qualify, for instance? An AR with CETME or AK trigger parts?

The interesting part here is that the AG and her office did this without legislative support.
That's my point; the half-baked AWBs of the past were half-baked to keep Fudds on board, rather than because the anti's weren't aware of or didn't care about semi-autos in general (which is why broad-based items like mags, and now systems, are being attacked now that Fudd influence has faded)

I suppose on one hand we could call this progress; they are finally meeting us on the field of battle as equals, putting real ideas & arguments forth for us to oppose, instead of nonsense & insults. So the debate has shifted from 'cater to our dumb whims' to 'how exactly shall we define & restrict these weapons we don't care for' which is both heartening and troubling. We may at long last be getting into real debates in the courts about the justification for banning "assault extractors" for example, or gas systems, or even semi-auto vs. automatic fire, because even a judge will demand an explanation for why THE MOST popular rifles sold can no longer be possessed for the sake of public interest, except for the huge numbers of THE MOST popular rifle already owned that are being tolerated (for now).

Honest debate is scarier, since their arguments & tactics will become more refined; we can no longer call them wholly ignorant & stupid children on this matter & humiliate them with an FNAR alongside a BAR Shorttrac, for instance. Now we get into the bigger, hairier questions of whether we wish to live in a country where we may own semi-autos in general, whether we can restrict entire classes of technology because of their capacity as tools for wrongdoing (large trucks...), whether we can enact such restriction while simultaneously permitting huge numbers of the same items to "roam the streets" even though these exact same guns are the exact reason the law was supposedly passed.

They're bringing their A game and bothering to learn a little about guns; we need to do the same. Semi-auto trigger groups are practically indistinguishable from full-auto ones when closed-bolt designs like all we have left are concerned, and can generally be modified to operate similarly, so this "class of technology" argument can and will ultimately play on fears of machineguns to get ALL semi-autos banned (potentially at the ATF level through interpretation & amnesty, which is why I am so curious to see if their fingers are on this MA effort) so we need to be ready to defend machineguns when the time comes --an awful lot of gun owners on here are not prepared to do so.

Time to stop running & finding workarounds (Bullet Button 2.0) to bad law, and time to start confronting it forcefully.

TCB
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top