shooterdownunder
New member
Welcome to my country 
Massachusetts Legal Attack: Sweeping Gun Ban Enacted
- Thread starter Rockrivr1
- Start date
They do however, IMO, engage in quite a bit of intellectual laziness or dishonesty to claim the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right.
I also think the "brilliance" of many a legal scholar is way over-rated. What exactly makes a legal scholar "brilliant?" What makes a Justice Ginsburg brilliant? Or a Justice Scalia? One of the supposedly most brilliant legal scholars of his generation upheld eugenics in the 1930s (the government's claiming it could sterilize people).
Spats McGee
Administrator
In my book, that's also called the "I-didn't-write-the-rules-I-just-play-by-them" defense.Aguila Blanca said:
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Unless Healey is going to argue "mere surplusage", I can see some glaring problems in the statutory language and the interpretation she desires to give it. Does Massachusetts presume the legislature is competent and conscious of every word when drafting statutes?
Maybe now gun owners will move to oppose the laws substantially, instead of complaining about having to figure out ban-compliant options (since there are no longer any for the most part, if you want a semi-auto)
Another avenue of attack would be to examine similarity to weapons on the exemptions list (I think a bunch of expensive BAR rifles like muck-mucks would own are on the list, as well as fancy shotguns) and force them to explain why a gun with the same configuration as a BAR (no scary features) but an AR's or AK's gas system is banned, whereas the fancy BAR gets a pass despite the 'assault' FNAR being out there, and has a short stroke gas system similar to the AUG.
I'm sure most judges would defer to the expert opinion of the AG...
I wonder how long before we just admit MA gun owners are out of options?
TCB
Jim Watson
New member
Apparently the AG and her minions have cranked the non-legislated "similarity test" down to a "vague similarity test" by bureaucratic fiat.
Ares SCR
Am I missing some detail or does this clearly make new sales of Ares SCR now illegal in Mass:
Precisely. And slippery slope and slippery slope fallacy are two different but often erroneously conflated things. 'Slippery slope" is often a valid argument and especially valid in constitutional law. It is amazing to me how educated people can say an argument is slippery slope and therefore inherently invalid when in fact they are just showing their own ignorance.
Moreover you are correct in identifying the clear and enunciated strategy of gun control groups -- incremental reduction of rights as steps in accomplishing overall bans.
And it is not hyperbolic to accuse gun control groups of a strategy towards bans. Can anyone even name a national gun control lobby or advocacy front that did not support any jurisdiction's alleged right to, on a 50.1% legislature and executive assent, put in place a full ban? Seems to me that through amicus, testimony or public support positions, every gun control lobby group of any profile supported DC's ability to do that in Heller, which was less than a decade ago
Am I missing some detail or does this clearly make new sales of Ares SCR now illegal in Mass:
SCR lower seems to have 3, 4 and 5.
Precisely. And slippery slope and slippery slope fallacy are two different but often erroneously conflated things. 'Slippery slope" is often a valid argument and especially valid in constitutional law. It is amazing to me how educated people can say an argument is slippery slope and therefore inherently invalid when in fact they are just showing their own ignorance.
Moreover you are correct in identifying the clear and enunciated strategy of gun control groups -- incremental reduction of rights as steps in accomplishing overall bans.
And it is not hyperbolic to accuse gun control groups of a strategy towards bans. Can anyone even name a national gun control lobby or advocacy front that did not support any jurisdiction's alleged right to, on a 50.1% legislature and executive assent, put in place a full ban? Seems to me that through amicus, testimony or public support positions, every gun control lobby group of any profile supported DC's ability to do that in Heller, which was less than a decade ago
Last edited:
Sadly we really just sort of walked into this one. How many times have we argued that the AR is no more dangerous than a semi-auto hunting rifle? I remember when Sen. Cruz compared pictures of a semi-auto hunting rifle to an AR during a Senate Hearing and asked several “experts” why the handgrip made it more dangerous. They all reluctantly admitted that it did not. At the time it seemed we were scoring points, but maybe not.
Spats McGee
Administrator
^^ Yes. I would even go so far as to say that this AG's actions demonstrate that our opponents do learn things from time to time.
carguychris
New member
In the absence of further clarification, it's certainly conceivable that #5 will be interpreted to mean any receiver that can accept a STANAG or Kalashnikov magazine.TDL said:
I've long believed that features tests are actually a carefully constructed rhetorical trap. Pointing out that they're a sham effectively dares the opposition to take things up a notch. Or two. Or six.BarryLee said:
You are correct. Sloppy wording on my part.carguychris said:
I should have written that the idea must be discussed without any pretense.
Oh, we were scoring points alright, but not for our team. IF we had been able to defeat the AWB law, prevent its passage, then the points would have been ours. We didn't.
Understand something about the way our political system works, when enough people get vocal enough about something, our politicians will make a law(s) about it. And those laws will be claimed to do something about the problem.
No matter what they actually do, or don't do. And, generally the loudest voices, not necessarily the most correct voices, will get their way.
When the AWB frenzy took hold, it was an inescapable fact that they were going to pass SOMETHING into law, to claim credit for fixing the problem. Their side was confident, and correct knowing they were going to be able to pass something, restricting guns in some way. They had enough political power (will of the people /loudest voices) to do it, and they knew it.
HOWEVER, they also knew that they DIDN'T have the backing to ban all the evil guns that they wanted to, simply because not enough people agreed with them that semi autos were evil guns. They knew that people simply would not agree with them if they tried to ban our semi duck guns and deer rifles.
SO they came up with the name "assault weapon", and since they had to exclude our "duck guns & deer rifles" or risk losing support, they created the list of "evil features" so they could define what was an evil assault weapon, and what was not.
We argued, the technically correct fact that the features they chose to define "evil" didn't DO anything to make the weapon any more evil than the (assumedly) "good" duck guns & deer rifles that they were allowing us to keep.
Our argument was essentially, that since these "evil" features didn't do anything to make the gun more lethal, etc., there was no valid justification for using them to define "evil". We were right. BUT, we lost. They got their law(s).
And with their law(s) the general acceptance that there were "evil" guns, that should be restricted/banned. Now, with a couple decades of "established law" and media propaganda behind them, to add the force of "correctness" and ethe "established way of doing things", to their cause, they are essentially saying that we were right, that the features on the list DON'T make the gun evil, it is the gun itself that is evil, and must be banned.
In short, they LIED then, to get their desired laws passed, and now are reversing that position (without admitting it), to be able to include more guns under the "politically acceptable to restrict / ban" umbrella. When the truth can be bent to serve their aims, they use it. When it doesn't they lie, and tell partial truths as fact in order to get what they want.
The one truth they refuse to use, or even allow in conversation, let alone accept, is the truth that there is only ONE thing that makes any gun "evil" and that is the person pulling the trigger. Every. Single. Time.
Respectfully I am going to disagree. There are profound deep sustained changes in public opinion in favor of allowing assault rifles. Take a look at the real trend:
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ABCWashPostPoll_BanningAssaultWeapons_1216.png
Other trends on a virtually all metrics show second amendment supporters have been winning for 20 years.
- NRA approvals up from ~40 to ~58% (gallup 1990's and late 2015)
- support for full handgun bans running around 75% for democrats 10 years ago, and now at about 50% (Wash Post surveys of DC residents 2008, and late 2015)
-Gallup, Pew, CNN, ABC, WaPost, WSJ long term polling on support for additional substantive gun control (not background check issue) show decline in all long and mid term measures (35, 30, 25, 20, 15, 10, 5 year periods)
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2012-07-20-Blumenthal-strictergunlaws.png
- Gallup and Pew both independently show that Americans saying owning a gun makes the home safer from crime was about 35% 20 years ago and is 58% to 63% today:
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/2015/04/FT_15.04.01_guns_Safer.png
Really what is going on is political opportunism supported by massive inflow of money, "pay for play", by Bloomberg using a an incremental strategy where the NRA can't fight back. Bloomberg is giving huge amounts at state level in red states.
Effectively, the actual only result with SCR, this would be a purely cost raising to the buyer ruling by the AG of some models of firearm but not others that are functionally identical.
For example the difference between a Mini 14 ranch and SCR is purely cost of "feature" and "non-feature" accessories*. Shouldering, maintaining aim, fire rate, heavy or light barrel options, optics and sighting options, acquirable mag capacity, ease of changing mags are functionally identical, just in some cases with mini 14 more expensive, but SCR looks to be newly prohibited for new sales in Mass under this ruling/finding/regulatory law/advisory (whatever it is) and Mini-14 not.
[*The actual out of box groupings of SCR are better, but again for some money ,mini 14 can be tuned professionally and legally to be as accurate]
carguychris
New member
You lost me.TDL said:
Is your main point that parts that won't interchange with those of a banned rifle are more expensive?
I'm sorry the language was a bi tortured.
What I am saying is ranch Mini 14 and SCR are identical in function. They are fixed stock, semi auto detachable magazine fed rifles. They are the same in posited lethality by feature. They both can have legal and in some jurisdictions not legal, further improvements. The difference is not in type of SCR legal and not legal parts or features, but their cost.
EG
Barrels: both have longer and shorter barrels available. Barrels with and without threads. Both have sub 16' barrels available and both depending on jurisdictions can have legal or illegal flash-suppressors, muzzle brakes etc. both can have a variety of twist, material and thickness of barrel as well. It is just that because of larger market, AR ones are cheaper.
On furniture/stock the Mini arguably is more lethal since the registered/controlled lower does not need to be changed, but a simple drop in polymer part needs to be added to achieve pistol grip below the action. Both are capable of forward pistol grip as well.
Both have mags in capacity of 30, Mini 14 ones are just more expensive (about 25%).
So my point is this regulatory pronouncement results in two equal firearms, that are only separated by price of improvements, and are seen as equal in all prior US gun law and makes one illegal and one not.
kilimanjaro
New member
Looks like all that posturing about 'assault rifles' being military selective fire weapons and thusly not an appropriate term didn't work.
No one was listening. They might have listened to arguments about civil rights, freedom, etc., but too many folks were playing at semantics instead of defending their rights.
Now you've got an AG to recall or impeach, court cases to advance, and a lot of civic education to engage in.
No one was listening. They might have listened to arguments about civil rights, freedom, etc., but too many folks were playing at semantics instead of defending their rights.
Now you've got an AG to recall or impeach, court cases to advance, and a lot of civic education to engage in.
carguychris
New member
IOW yes.carguychris said:
+1, just like posturing about how silly it is to ban flash hiders, since the gun is equally lethal without one.kilimanjaro said:
IMHO both lines of argument are correct in a purely technical sense, but soar over the heads of the folks in the pews rather than the choir loft.
Yes, telling how "assault weapons" are nonsense is a double-edged sword as then all a gun ban proponent need say is, "Then ban all semiautomatic guns that take detachable magazines!" To which a gun rights proponent needs to be prepared.
This law should be a direct violation of Heller, but there is no way to stop it. The Massachusetts supreme court won't strike it down (they upheld a ban on tasers) and the Supreme Court won't be able to do anything about it without a conservative replacement for Scalia. And Ginsburg recently said she'd love a case to reconsider and overturn the Heller decision.
This law should be a direct violation of Heller, but there is no way to stop it. The Massachusetts supreme court won't strike it down (they upheld a ban on tasers) and the Supreme Court won't be able to do anything about it without a conservative replacement for Scalia. And Ginsburg recently said she'd love a case to reconsider and overturn the Heller decision.