Massachusetts Legal Attack: Sweeping Gun Ban Enacted

[Rockrivr1]

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

 

[Rockrivr1]

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

 

[Sharkbite]

I thought this was an interesting sentence

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.

Yet those are some of the features used to CLASSIFY guns as "assault weapons". If those features taken away dont make the weapons safer...how does adding them make them more dangerous?

 

[Rockrivr1]

Nope, but 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.

 

[44 AMP]

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."

There was language very close to this in the Fed 94 AWB. Without even looking I would bet money that there is the same, "identical or substantially similar to" language in the MA law. ALL the states that kept or created an "assault weapon" law used the same language in general, if not identical copies of the Fed law, MINUS the sunset clause.

And, bad as it seems now that the MA AG has decided to act, it is actually..

WORSE than it seems.

Because, its NOT JUST semi autos that are covered. This is something I warned about back when the laws were passed, a possibility in law, something that they would WAIT for a decade or more to begin to enforce.

First off, depending on HOW the reigning authority defines the term, say good bye to all detatchable magazine semi autos. (OK, we ALL saw that one waiting in the wings, right??)

Now, here's the sneaky "hiding in the woodpile" kicker, say goodbye to your DA REVOLVERS as well!!!! The language is in the law, has been since the law was passed, and if we object NOW, (or whenever they get around to using it) they will simply argue that since we didn't object then, we have no basis for objection now, decade(s) LATER.

The key to this is the language "mechanism identical or substantially similar to" AND the firearms on the list (from the beginning).

Specifically, the Stryker 12 / Streetsweeper shotguns. (if they aren't on the MA list, I would be amazed, they have been on every list since the 94AWB)

DESPITE looking like they use a drum magazine, they do not. What looks like a drum (detachable mag) is actually a cylinder, like a revolver, and the trigger mechanism was copied from, and is substantially similar to a DA revolver in both construction and function.

THEREFORE, since this gun(s) are on the list, and DA revolvers are substantially similar to the gun(s) on the list, the law has authority over them.

And, I don't think it's a matter of IF, but a matter of WHEN they get around to trying to ban revolvers under that law. They'll go after the ARs AKs and semi auto RIFLES first, (which is what they are currently doing with the entire assault weapon hysteria) but they will go after every other type of gun, when they deem the political climate to be favorable.

Few people actively recall the pre-80s days, back all the way into the 60s, when the EVIL gun they were trying to ban was the revolver. Specially the smaller easily concealed ones, and the cheap ones. Where do you think the national use of the term "Saturday Night Special" came from??

NOBODY was pushing AR bans back then though the AR and many others later classified as assault weapons were on sale to the public in those days.

Trust me on this, IF they get what that want, and get rid of assault weapons (which now appears they are going to define as all semi autos) , they WILL go back to trying to get rid of revolvers. And IF they get that, they will go after single shots.

Remember these are the same mindset of people (possibly some of the same people) who demanded trigger locks on a pair of the actual muskets used at Lexington and Concord, because they are displayed on the wall of the capitol and children are allowed in the capitol building!!!!

Good Luck MA gun owners.

your're going to need it...

 

[dakota.potts]

Says nothing about the VZ58, CETME/HK roller delayed blowback rifles, CZ Scorpion, Sig MPX, PS90, or a number of other guns which could be made compliant. If magazines aren't considered interchangeable parts, that list would include substantially more firearm models. Am I wrong?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

Yet those are some of the features used to CLASSIFY guns as "assault weapons". If those features taken away dont make the weapons safer...how does adding them make them more dangerous?

That was one of the flaws in the late, unlamented federal AWB of 1994, from which the Massachusetts AWB of 1998 was no doubt largely copied. They didn't define an "assault weapon" based on its functionality for carrying out a military assault, they defined it based on a specific set of "evil" cosmetic features: flash hider, bayonet lug, vertical foregrip, protruding pistol grip, telescoping or folding stock, etc.

Unsurprisingly, the people and companies that made their living by manufacturing and selling guns quickly regrouped and started making and selling guns that didn't have more than the allowable two "evil" features. And the morons who wrote and enacted the law predictably cried foul and accused the manufacturers of exploiting a "loophole."

They weren't exploiting a loophole. They were 100 percent complying with the law, exactly the way to morons wrote it. Calling that a "loophole" is no different from accusing me of "exploiting a loophole" if I drive at 65 MPH on a 65 MPH road in order to avoid getting a speeding ticket.

So now the AG wants to unilaterally redefine terms that have been in use for almost two decades. I really don't see it surviving. I'm not a lawyer so I can't cite any laws or precedents, but it's my understanding that there's a fundamental legal principle that says you can't "interpret" a law to say the opposite of what the words in the law plainly say.

 

[ammo.crafter]

amazing.

How dictatorial.

So glad I moved to Pennsylvania

 

[44 AMP]

there's a fundamental legal principle that says you can't "interpret" a law to say the opposite of what the words in the law plainly say.

Most of us not in the legal profession would think the underlying principle is called "the truth", but as I understand it, the law can be worked differently, depending on a court's decision.

the principle I think involved here is whether or not the MA AG has the legal authority to change the "apparent" definitions. And, she MAY, depending on the exact wording of the MA law. (I have not read the law, and am speaking in general terms here).

IF, for example the law gives the top LEO (state AG, Fed SEC Tres - OR delegate) the authority to define what guns are covered under the law, and why, (as some laws do), then they HAVE that authority.

IF MA law does not grant that authority to the AG, then the action is "illegal" (beyond the scope of law), and you have a case you can take to court.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I agree it is a heinous decision as far as rule of law goes; but who is going to tell her differently? The Mass. Supreme Court? The First Circuit Court of Appeals? Three of the eight Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States have already told us they would uphold not only this "legal" decision; but far worse ones.

And I agree with 44AMP. All those editorials pointing out that assault weapons are rarely involved in gun violence - 90% of those aren't being writtten because the author is pro-semi-automatics. They are being written because the author thinks that is a "good first step" in gun banning and wants to set his audience up for the next ban. After all, if semi-auto rifles are too deadly to own, then why not semi-auto pistols? What makes 7 rounds or 10 rounds OK and 13 rounds too dangerous? It isn't a slippery slope - it is a near vertical wall greased with hog fat.

There isn't a single jurisdiction anywhere in the Western world that has banned "assault weapons" and then stopped and said "That is enough gun control." Every single one of them, especially at the state level, continue to add more and more guns to the banned list as time passes. The laws are written vaguely precisely so they can be reinterpreted by bureaucrats at some future, more convenient date.

 

[Minorcan]

Sounds like a good time to stop paying MA taxes by moving to a state that has politicians with a minimum IQ of 50 or more. Most states have processes that are required before enacting new laws or substantially changing existing laws or their interpretation and enforcement. Sounds like a need for a suit and Case Law. The FFLs need to sue and ask for an injunction to block enforcement.

 

[Armorer-at-Law]

It isn't a slippery slope - it is a near vertical wall greased with hog fat.

There isn't a single jurisdiction anywhere in the Western world that has banned "assault weapons" and then stopped and said "That is enough gun control."

TRUTH.

The FFLs need to sue and ask for an injunction to block enforcement.

The FFLs have a business interest, but the loss of liberty effects all MA residents.

 

[44 AMP]

Sounds like a good time to stop paying MA taxes by moving to a state that has politicians with a minimum IQ ...

First off, while I understand the sentiment, and how saying so makes one feel better, comments like this add nothing useful to the discussion, and disparaging comments about states, people or politicians, or the IQs thereof are also skirting forum rules, especially in L& CR.

Reagan once said something like "the problem with our opponents isn't that they know so little, its that they know so much that is wrong!"

These people are not fools, not low IQ, they are quite smart, some are brilliant. They just believe in the opposite of what we do.

Thinking, (and saying) they are "stupid" reflects poorly on us, because it simply isn't true, AND leads us to underestimate them, which is NEVER a good thing.

 

[carguychris]

These people are not fools, not low IQ, they are quite smart, some are brilliant. They just believe in the opposite of what we do... Thinking, (and saying) they are "stupid" reflects poorly on us, because it simply isn't true, AND leads us to underestimate them, which is NEVER a good thing.

+100. Exhibit A: The fact that AG Healey is openly advocating for moving past "evil features" tests, as discussed by Sharkbite and Aguila. The new CA laws regarding semi-auto rifles are also a move in this direction.

The constant chorus of guffaws about features tests ("Har har har, don't those nincompoops realize that the basic gun still works without the flash hider and adjustable stock...") always irritates me because, I assure you, there are plenty of folks on the gun-control side who know perfectly well that features tests are a sham and a feeble attempt at compromise. Rubbing it in their face simply dares them to take it to the next level. In fact, some of them were certainly counting on this!

The good news is that they HAVE taken it to the next level and shown their hand by openly calling for an effective ban on semi-auto rifles that accept detachable magazines. The idea now must be discussed on its merits.

 

[BarryLee]

they HAVE taken it to the next level and shown their hand by openly calling for an effective ban on semi-auto rifles that accept detachable magazines. The idea now must be discussed on its merits.

While these individuals may know exactly what they are doing I wonder if the average American knows enough about guns to realize how sweeping this could be. All they hear is “semi-auto” and “detachable magazine” and they often invasion something much worse than reality. No, the politicians may not be idiots, but they are banking on the gullibility of the American public.

 

[Rockrivr1]

They absolutely knew what they were doing. Reports coming out indicate that Healey ran this like a top secret operation with a very few, top lawyers being involved. She didn't consult the Legislature or the Governor before rolling this out. Her timing was also strategically done as most lawmakers have left for summer break. The Governor has come out in support of it, but by law there isn't much he can do to stop her and he's a R in a very D state so his tenure is not a given.

 

[tyme]

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.

"We couldn't get the law passed that we wanted, so when companies continue doing the thing we don't like but couldn't outlaw, we complain that they're not abiding by the spirit of the neutered law we did pass."

 

[mrray13]

When I read about this yesterday, and I've got to find the source, it was in the article that she, the AG, DOES have the authority to change, interpret, dictate the statute how she sees fit.

So how is that going to affect this seemingly effective grab? And that article quoted her as saying that only new purchases are banned, all currently owned weapons are, um, safe.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The good news is that they HAVE taken it to the next level and shown their hand by openly calling for an effective ban on semi-auto rifles that accept detachable magazines. The idea now must be discussed on its merits.

Except that the Massachusetts AG has shown that she has no intention of discussing the concept on its merits. She simply moved forward by executive fiat.

The grabbers have now figured out that the features test won't work. They got a clue during the federal AWB period. It became more clear after sandy Hook, when NY and CT tightened up their statutory descriptions of what evil features constitute an "assault weapon." How long was it after NY passed their new [midnight] definition before innovative people started creating AR-15 furniture that met the letter of the law while still allowing an AR-15 to function like an AR-15?

They see this, so now they're just jumping several steps closer to the end game rather than following the incremental, "death by a thousand cuts" process.

 

[Spats McGee]

I've been watching this thread, but haven't gotten around to posting here. However, I've done a little research. Let's take a peek at the underlying statutes in MA law. I've tinkered with the formatting a little, and added some emphasis.

“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as:
(i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
(iv) Colt AR-15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12;
(vi) Steyr AUG;
(vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
(viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include:
(i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
(ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon;
(iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899;
(v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon;
(vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or
(vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 140, § 121 (West)

So, yes, the MA law defining assault weapons includes duplicates & clones. I don't think she's legislating on that issue. What she has done is take a hard turn on enforcement. Looking at the legislative history of the above-captioned statute, I'd be that the part defining assault weapons was added in 1996. I don't know that for certain, but that's my best bet. Her hard turn effectively reverses 20 years of non-enforcement. The "duplicates & clones" language has always been there, but AFAIK, it was never enforced until today. I question whether this sudden, 180 turn violates Due Process. I don't know that it does, but I'll bet someone makes the argument.