I've gotten into some debates with gun rights people over this, who say, "A gun is just a tool meant to send a projectile downrange," the constant calling of AR-15s "Modern Sporting Rifles," etc...I have always maintained that we need to argue that AR'S are weapons of war and firearms are very much a tool designed for killing. That's the point. And that's the concept of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, i.e. that the people have the right to keep and bear the same basic weapons as professional soldiers, both for self-defense (which at it's core, as John Locke said, is also a form of warfare) and resistance to tyranny.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Massachusetts Legal Attack: Sweeping Gun Ban Enacted
- Thread starter Rockrivr1
- Start date
I've gotten into some debates with gun rights people over this, who say, "A gun is just a tool meant to send a projectile downrange," the constant calling of AR-15s "Modern Sporting Rifles," etc...I have always maintained that we need to argue that AR'S are weapons of war and firearms are very much a tool designed for killing. That's the point. And that's the concept of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, i.e. that the people have the right to keep and bear the same basic weapons as professional soldiers, both for self-defense (which at it's core, as John Locke said, is also a form of warfare) and resistance to tyranny.
carguychris
New member
Although I'm not terribly familiar with MA politics, I'd argue that there's one crucial difference that may be relevant here: the Taser case concerned the overall validity of the law in general, whereas AG Healey is changing the interpretation of a law, in a way that effectively reverses 2 decades of past interpretation, with no advance warning.LogicMan said:The Massachusetts supreme court won't strike it down (they upheld a ban on tasers)...
One thing that stood out when reading the Boston Globe link is that a number of presumably local commentators were quite upset at the unilateral and sudden nature of Healey's action even though they SUPPORT the idea of a more stringent AWB; IOW they are upset not because she's doing it, but because she's doing it the wrong way.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
LogicMan, that has been my position also. The euphemisms and the work arounds of technical descriptions of firearms have been noticed and discussed by gun banners.
They will go for the guns full bore and the MSR rhetoric, tool meme, bullet button, NY compliant ARs, etc. will be be seen as rather pathetic attempts to avoid or pander.
When the reports came out that the original AWB was useless, the anti folks saw this and drew the reasonable conclusions for their positions. Take them all down.
They will go for the guns full bore and the MSR rhetoric, tool meme, bullet button, NY compliant ARs, etc. will be be seen as rather pathetic attempts to avoid or pander.
When the reports came out that the original AWB was useless, the anti folks saw this and drew the reasonable conclusions for their positions. Take them all down.
Spats McGee
Administrator
I've had that same debate. My (constitutional) issue with those who want to say that "guns are tools" is that the 2A doesn't protect a Right to Keep and Bear Tools.LogicMan said:. . . .I've gotten into some debates with gun rights people over this, who say, "A gun is just a tool meant to send a projectile downrange," the constant calling of AR-15s "Modern Sporting Rifles," etc...I have always maintained that we need to argue that AR'S are weapons of war and firearms are very much a tool designed for killing. That's the point. And that's the concept of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, i.e. that the people have the right to keep and bear the same basic weapons as professional soldiers, both for self-defense (which at it's core, as John Locke said, is also a form of warfare) and resistance to tyranny.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Same argument who claim that being an instrument of 'sport' somehow makes these guns nice and protects them is some manner.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Glenn E. Meyer said:When the reports came out that the original AWB was useless, the anti folks saw this and drew the reasonable conclusions for their positions. Take them all down.
Seeing as how the legislative language being tortured here was lifted directly from the 1994 federal ban, I'd argue that the anti gun folks had reached the "take them all" conclusion prior to the federal AWB.
They'll modify it and spin it to accomodate public opinion and get a foot in the door; but they are serious about banning. All that talk about how important background checks were after Newtown; but even after they exempted CHL's from the check, they still made them go to an FFL and fill out a 4473 in the proposed legislation. Tom Coburn's bill would have background checked every single sale in the U.S. - but it also would have made the 4473 irrelevant. So it didn't even get a vote.
As I've said a time or two, the leadership people behind these campaigns are not dealing in good faith and are not honorable. They'll say whatever they need to say to get their foot in the door and tomorrow they'll say something 180 degrees different to get their nose in as well.
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.
Are you saying that people will start adding 'denial features' to make mechanically incompatible but functionally similar versions of parts to approximate the original operation in a legally accessible format? Ain't nobody got time for that (this is exactly how all those semi-auto conversions from full-auto parts kits, including AK47 and G3s, get built legally in this country)
All the law will do is spur a little industry of folks making oversized AR charging handles, right?
The problem is the law also covers similar operation and function. No way to get around that, I'm afraid. This is the hill to die on if there is one, fellows. So goes the AR15, so goes all firearms.
Double-edged sword nothing; it simply forces them to craft their previous weak arguments into better ones. The AWB 1.0 was truly stupid; so much so it was insulting to even discuss. Even they don't deny this. So what could you expect them to do, but to retrace their steps, figure out what they really set out to accomplish, and actually bother to think about how best to achieve it this go around.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 is what we've been wanting on the pro-gun side all along, in my opinion. Force them into arguing that for "scary assault weapons" to be banned, ALL semi-autos must be banned --even the nice, woodstocked, blued, engraved heirloom masterpieces, like the presiding judge has in a glass case at home.
Hell, frame the debate so as to force them to argue that for machineguns to be banned, ALL guns must be banned & confiscated immediately --there's no way they could possibly win that argument in this reality, and it would for a good long while put to bed whatever incremental steps they'd wish to take in the interim otherwise.
We've folded our hand while the wagers were cheap and our stack high enough for a long, long time now (just under 100 years). We finally got mad after the 94AWB, and upped the ante when it expired by calling them fools & making clear our intention to make the banning of AR15s impossible. So they have now raised the stakes, claiming they will get away with banning practically all semi-autos in an entire state.
The real question is who holds a better argument in hand (please no Trump card jokes, the irony would be too much), who will flinch and fold before they are forced to show their hand, and are either/both of us ready with a derringer beneath the table should the opposing party fail to abide by the outcome & try to steal the pot?
TCB
Eh, tools are intended for a purpose. The RKBA acknowledges both the importance of that purpose, and that firearms are crucial to working toward it.My (constitutional) issue with those who want to say that "guns are tools" is that the 2A doesn't protect a Right to Keep and Bear Tools.
Most folks who claim guns are household appliances (no different than the meat grinder that processes the animal just harvested) are simply evading the purpose of the RKBA, same as always.
TCB
Most folks who claim guns are household appliances (no different than the meat grinder that processes the animal just harvested) are simply evading the purpose of the RKBA, same as always.
The argument that guns are tools is factually correct. They absolutely ARE tools, in the broadest sense.
I think most people who use the "tools" argument, without mentioning the other purpose of our RKBA are simply looking for some kind of argument that undecided will actually listen to.
Once you get them THINKING, you can explain other aspects of the RKBA.
A problem with the Founders ideas about the RKBA is that being armed in order to be the militia, or to be able to resist a tyrannical government, is not that the ideas are wrong, but that many modern "educated" people consider the ideas as ridiculously outdated, and not relevant to modern life.
Anything that can be boiled down to "I have a right to a gun to fight the government" brands you as a wackjob of some degree to these people, and NOTHING else you say will be listened to.
I would also point out the Heller vs. DC case confirmed that our right to arms exists independent of the 2nd Amendment RKBA reasons.
It is also a matter of PROPERTY RIGHTS, meaning our right to own such property as we see fit. I believe that is covered under the "Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" concepts. (I understand original drafts said "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Property).
We believe that restrictions on owning certain types of firearms are an infringement on our rights.
They believe that as long as we can own some kind of firearm (and they want them to be single shots, and only because they still have to allow us to own something) then our rights are not being violated.
The 2nd Amendment RKBA is a political right. We also have the natural right to own arms. They are not exactly the same, and BOTH apply.
Maybe I'm thinking with too broad a view, but this talk about "substantially similar operating system" is the truly big worry IMO.
In reality all cartridge firearms have a 'similar' operating system: a metal firing pin strikes a cartridge within the chamber of a barrel or tube resulting in the ignition of a charge of smokeless powder.
As others have said, this isn't a slippery slope: it's a greased cliff. All it will take is for someone to be bold enough to redefine the similarity of all modern cartridge arms.
In reality all cartridge firearms have a 'similar' operating system: a metal firing pin strikes a cartridge within the chamber of a barrel or tube resulting in the ignition of a charge of smokeless powder.
As others have said, this isn't a slippery slope: it's a greased cliff. All it will take is for someone to be bold enough to redefine the similarity of all modern cartridge arms.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Anything that can be boiled down to "I have a right to a gun to fight the government" brands you as a wackjob of some degree to these people, and NOTHING else you say will be listened to.
I saw a t-shirt the other day, and Lord knows you are in trouble when you are taking your philosophy from a t-shirt, but it said "The Second Amendment isn't there to guarantee your safety. It is there to guarantee your ability to fight back."*
I thought that was a succinct summation of the issue. I have no interest in fighting the government. I, and just about everyone else, can relate to wanting to at least have the choice of being able to fight back. Phrasing it that way, you can defuse the attempt to associate you with wackjobs? "Fight the government? Sure, I guess if reptiloid Nazis became the government I'd fight back <laugh>. That's probably not likely but there are more common threats I'd like to be able to defend myself from..."
Although if you want to attempt the scholarly fight the government argument, this link is a must read: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/76holo.htm
*And on a tangential matter, I think the deep source of a lot of support for gun control is rooted in the phenomenon described in Jeffrey Snyder's "A Nation of Cowards." Having to seriously contemplate fighting the government or taking responsibility for your own self-defense is an immensely frightening prospect to anyone with a brain. Some people will choose to face their fears and some will deny they have anything to fear to deal with it.
If you want to reach out to antis, you have to understand that fear and help them find the courage to overcome it without triggering that propensity for denial.
Last edited:
Maybe I'm thinking with too broad a view, but this talk about "substantially similar operating system" is the truly big worry IMO.
In reality all cartridge firearms have a 'similar' operating system: a metal firing pin strikes a cartridge within the chamber of a barrel or tube resulting in the ignition of a charge of smokeless powder.
As others have said, this isn't a slippery slope: it's a greased cliff. All it will take is for someone to be bold enough to redefine the similarity of all modern cartridge arms.
I'm glad at least a few people are getting it. This isn't "just another ban," it's the Final Solution for semi-autos, outright. Frankly, it accurately describes semi-autos for ban even better than an explicit "semi-autos are now illegal" statute language would. It's function is very similar to the NFA language that describes & dispositions machineguns and devices deemed too similar to them, only the MA law describes what makes a machine readily convertible to AW's, which just happens to encompass every present or imaginable semi-auto firearm (except perhaps HK roller guns & VZ58s, until they're added as well)
This law explicitly targets semi-autos, manuals (though often mechanically identical) are at least specifically exempt. But ancient, obsolete, and ineffective firearms aren't what the RKBA is about, nor are they even adequate to partially fufill its purpose (case in point: Mexican Federales/Narcos vs. civilian Autodefensas with bolt rifles & single shot scatterguns). From that perspective, this power play is the death blow, coup de grace, whatever you want to call it, for gun owners' political power in MA. If it stands, gun owners interested in their freedoms will either leave, or grow disillusioned & fade away. A deal of that has happened already in MA.
There will be no more retreating, unless it's to leave MA entirely, it would seem.
TCB
My brother lives in Connecticut, and he let his handgun license lapse by mistake. This meant he couldn't even purchase handgun ammo until he took classes and became re-certified. In the class was a former service member that just moved to Ct. from another state. He mentioned that he had an AR-15 and a bunch of 30 round mag's he wanted to bring into his new home. The instructor told him he would be a FELON if caught with ANY of those items!.
Massachusetts is simply duplicating the law already instituted in CT.
If it weren't for the newly elected Republican governor we voted for here in Maryland, I have no doubt I would find myself in the same boat.
Contact your congressperson and let them know how you feel.
Massachusetts is simply duplicating the law already instituted in CT.
If it weren't for the newly elected Republican governor we voted for here in Maryland, I have no doubt I would find myself in the same boat.
Contact your congressperson and let them know how you feel.
CT bans features and specific models, IIRC, and has not (yet) had an expansive interpretation that broadens those to "things the AG thinks are indistinguishable." The language may be the same, but the practical effect appears to be ramping up dramatically.Massachusetts is simply duplicating the law already instituted in CT.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Totally unrelated to Connecticut.pacman said:My brother lives in Connecticut, and he let his handgun license lapse by mistake. This meant he couldn't even purchase handgun ammo until he took classes and became re-certified. In the class was a former service member that just moved to Ct. from another state. He mentioned that he had an AR-15 and a bunch of 30 round mag's he wanted to bring into his new home. The instructor told him he would be a FELON if caught with ANY of those items!.
Massachusetts is simply duplicating the law already instituted in CT.
After the Sandy Hook school shooting, Connecticut re-wrote it's assault weapons ban law, essentially reducing the allowable number of "evil" features from two down to one. That made all formerly legal post-ban configuration AR-15s (and similar firearms) into instant "assault weapons." Owners who already had them were given a window of opportunity to register them with the state police. IIRC, the law was passed in April and the deadline was in December. After that, no AR-type firearms falling within the outlawed configuration could be registered in Connecticut or imported into Connecticut. The new law also applied to magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Same window of opportunity to register them; after the deadline, they became contraband.
This former service member was not allowed to bring in his AR for the sinmple reason that the law didn't allow him to bring it in, not because anyone reinterpreted an old law to suddenly encompass much more than the law was intended to encompass.
Dragline45
New member
MA resident here. The biggest issue here isn't even the banning of most semi-autos, and believe me that is a huge issue for me, it's the AG's clear overreach of power. It sets an extremely dangerous precedent. She basically got away with reinterpreting a law that has been on the books for almost 20 years to how she sees fit. I foresee this being overturned, but that takes time, so for the time being it's here to stay. I'll tell you this though, I am damn glad I bought a second lower a couple months back and ordered my upper from BCM before they stopped shipping to MA, which they did as of 2 days ago.
Seems like this is the new gun control format:
Step 1. Pass a common sense gun law that can get through the legislature.
Step 2. Enforce the law in excess of how the law is written.
Step 3. Take a gamble with legal challenges, worst case scenario is that after years in court the decision is not in the state's favor; not to worry, the damage has long since taken hold
Step 1. Pass a common sense gun law that can get through the legislature.
Step 2. Enforce the law in excess of how the law is written.
Step 3. Take a gamble with legal challenges, worst case scenario is that after years in court the decision is not in the state's favor; not to worry, the damage has long since taken hold
Quote:
"The new law also applied to magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Same window of opportunity to register them; after the deadline, they became contraband."
Did the state mark those magazines somehow that hold over 10 rounds when owners registered them? How do you prevent someone from buying more at an out-of-state gun show?
"The new law also applied to magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Same window of opportunity to register them; after the deadline, they became contraband."
Did the state mark those magazines somehow that hold over 10 rounds when owners registered them? How do you prevent someone from buying more at an out-of-state gun show?