Maura Healey,attorney general of Massachusetts, wrote an editorial for the Boston Globe and said:
Here in Massachusetts, 10,000 assault weapons were sold just in the last year…
Interesting. In just one year 10k a particular class of guns were sold in the state. Since that class of firearm has been around for well over 20 years there must be something on the order of 100K or more of them in the state. That must mean those type of guns are “in common use” and protected by the Heller Decision, right?
And how many crimes were committed with those firearms? She doesn’t tell us of any in the state of Massachusetts. She mentions just four in the entire country over the span of several years. Commenter Doverham (07/20/16 10:28 AM) tells us:
How many people a year are killed with “assault weapons” in MA – isn’t that a relevant number to know before deciding whether this is actually worthwhile or meaningful? I will give you a hint – that number was 2 in 2013, 1/17th the number killed with handguns, 1/30th the number killed by distracted drivers.
Yet she thinks this is justification for banning all of them. What other specific enumerated right, exercised by 100K+ people in your state, could someone justify the infringement of by four crimes committed in other states and two in your own? If that is all someone has to have for justification for infringement then who knows what she will demand be banned next? If that sort of rational passes logical and constitutional muster then she, or the next attorney general, can easily justify the banning of Islam, Democrats, or people with dark skin.
She also said:
On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers.
The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.
Ahhh… there we have it. She knows she can’t get the law changed through legislative channels so she just dictates her desires. And if a gun “has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon” it will be prohibited. That will be “fun” to determine and enforce. I would if she considers ammunition a “component”. And what about a scope, flashlight, rail, spring, peep sight, or bipod?
Also note that she thinks guns have “operating systems”. Dictators don’t have to know what they are talking about. They just have to have people with guns willing to follow orders.
Update: See also what Sebastian has to say about it.
Update 2: See also John Richardson and Say Uncle.
Update 3: See also Thirdpower.
The point is that an effectively armed society cannot be subjugated. That fact annoys the Progressives immensely, and so they’ll do anything and say anything to weaken that armed society.
All gas operated firearms function “essentially the same”, but that’s not the point. That’s the sort of thing they get us arguing about rather than sticking to the point.
Interchangeable parts = copy?
Wow. That whole Picatinny Rail thing is going to be a fun one to deal with. I mean, someone might try to attach a tactical assault bottle opener. I look forward to the pleadings.
“Yes, your honor, my client did, in front of witnesses, perform a tactical top-assault upon a bottle of Keystone, but it was not with intent to become intoxicated, and it was only opened from a legally owned six-pack, not a high-capacity assault beer-case. It was the neighbor who became loaded with too many shots.”
“Interchangeable parts = copy?”
Just think of how many manufacturers build their firearms to accept Glock mags, up to and including 30-rounders. How many rifles accept STANAG mags, or AR or AK mags.
The Kel-Tec Sub-2000, for example, is on the ban list. It’s a 9mm carbine that can accept Glock magazines. Thus every Glock in the state — including those carried by police — is a “copy” of a banned gun on account they have “interchangeable parts”.
This is so broad and vague as to be unconstitutionally meaningless.
“This is so broad and vague as to be unconstitutionally meaningless.” Which is exactly how they want it. That allows for arbitrary enforcement, which puts all the power in THEIR hands, and none in the people’s.
Massachusetts sure has fallen far since it was the place where the Shot Heart Around the World was fired. And when its convention said the 2nd amendment was redundant because the Federal government clearly had no power to mess with the right to arms, with or without that amendment. (And they were right, of course. But the redundancy ended up saving the day.)
I’m thinking: it’s not possible to be too redundant when placing restrictions on the powers of Government.
Maybe well get another one of those shots from there again. Then they may be sad to find out some of us are still willing to fight for our liberty if they force us to it.
John, I think you’re right. Even the redundancy we have is not nearly enough. For an eye opener, read St. George Tucker’s “View of the Constitution” (1802), free at http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/tucker-view-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-with-selected-writings (where for some odd reason they claim copyright in a 200+ year old text…)
http://fauquierfreecitizen.com/seventy-two-killed-resisting-gun-confiscation-in-boston/
“If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal…”
We should give team tyranny a little credit where it’s deserved; they do spur garage born, entrepreneurial innovation don’t they? Off to the drawing board we go.
And something more sinister; Imagine an army without interchangeable and standardized parts. What army? I remember hearing how the south had multiple gauges of rail line and could not effectively transport equipment.
She just made 8×40 machine screws illegal.
Of course, as always, none of this applies to MA police. THEY can get all the ARs they want.
They can also buy new Glocks. Did you know that ordinary MA citizens can’t buy new Glocks? The only Glocks you find in MA gun stores are the used ones sold by police officers. (Now THERE’S a loophole for you.)
In their 2013-2014 session, the Massachusetts legislature introduced 6947 bills and passed 687 of them into law. Of those, 100% resulted in the inconveniencing, financial or personal injury, or death of at least one Massachusetts citizen. It’s time for this rampant misuse of government – the MA AG should ban the passage of all laws, particularly since they all have similar or duplicate language in them.
Since “component” could also refer to ammunition, imagine all the non “assault” firearms covered. This is the ideal opportunity to get the “Fudds” onto our side permanently. Let’s gather some allies and think about a class-action lawsuit to make an example out of MA.
This AG just opened up a potential vulnerability in the entire anti-gun movement if they fight to make this stand.
So, as I read this, Maura Healey, attorney general of Massachusetts, had just admitted that those statutory “features” that “defined an assault weapon” in their statute are just hogwash and it’s really something else that makes it an evil gun.
Remember the 1994 AWB named some guns by brand & model while describing others and Massachusetts law incorporates that language, claiming a semi-auto weapon with a detachable magazine firearm with (one or more of) the following features is an AW…
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount
So now that the manufacturers determined Massachusetts found certain features “offensive,” which were defined by legislative law, and eliminated them, the AG wants a new definition. And she is going to create a “directive” telling us the law will be enforced based on a new definition.
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong about the Massachusetts form of government, but isn’t the A.G. part of the executive branch while the laws of the state are made by the Legislative branch?
And given that the statutes defining “assault weapon” don’t mention the type of operating “system” of the weapon beyond “semi-automatic”, this would be an unconstitutional exercise of power by the AG because it changes the statutory definition. Fine. Let her. Then arrest her and charge her with violating the state Constitution and her oath of office.
Words are important
“If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon…”
Would her “operating system” test make the Ares Defense SCR an illegal assault weapon? It’s recoil buffer differs from the AR-15 in design and functional effects.
http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/P1060538-900×600.jpg
Would her use of the word “OR” in the paragraph mean that even a bolt action rifle could be an “assault weapon” if it utilizes interchangeable “components” of one? Like magazines? So would that make owners of Mossberg’s bolt-action MVP Predator, which can use AR mags, illegal?
I seriously think she should go ahead and draft the directive and send it to the manufacturers. Then they should ALL petition the legislature to remove her from office for illegally attempting to usurp legislative powers and violating her oath.
Yeah, she basically took the “one-feature test” written in MA law, and turned it into a “zero-feature test”.
As I’ve said elsewhere, on the “operating system” issue, depending on which level they choose to define “operating system” on, they could ban anything.
On a technical level, an AR pattern rifle has a direct gas impingement system to cycle the bolt and load the next round. Any firearm that uses a similar system is now banned.
On a functional level, an AR pattern rifle is semi-automatic and fires one round per trigger pull, then chambers the next round. Any semi-automatic firearm is similar enough to now be banned.
On a “user experience” level, an AR pattern rifle uses a simple, user-friendly “point, click, BANG” interface that anybody can pick up and learn. Under this definition, any firearm manufactured in the last 400-600 years is similar enough to now be banned.
The word “vague” doesn’t even begin to describe how open to interpretation the MA AG’s statement really is.
Pingback: Mass Ban | The Zelman Partisans
That semiautomatic rifles are used in very few criminal acts is a feature, not a bug, in her reasoning. If a ban can be enforced successfully on an entire class of firearm that is NOT misused frequently, that makes it ever so much easier to accomplish bans on other classes of firearms that are used criminally at any higher rate.
It is the logic of oppression, and it makes a certain kind of horrible sense.