General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYES! First State In America BANS The Sale Of Semi-Automatic Rifles
http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/07/21/yes-first-state-in-america-bans-the-sale-of-semi-automatic-rifles-details/One of those individuals is Maura Healey, the attorney general for the state of Massachusetts. Writing for the Boston Globe, she said:
Here in Massachusetts, 10,000 assault weapons were sold just in the last year each one nearly identical to the rifle used to gun down 49 innocent people in Orlando. In the week after the Pulse nightclub massacre, sales of weapons strikingly similar to the Sig Sauer MCX used at Pulse jumped as high as 450 percent over the previous week just in Massachusetts....
Fed-up with the multitude of excuses from Republicans, Healey decided to take matters into her own hands. According to her letter in the Boston Globe:
The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans copies or duplicates of those weapons. But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a copy or duplicate weapon is. They market state compliant copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. 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.
But on Wednesday, Healey plans to change all that. On Wednesday, she writes, 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.
Old tourism slogan: "The spirit of Massachusetts is the spirit of America!"
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Sorry but you are just plain wrong
beevul
(12,194 posts)Whos brainiac idea was it to try to ban 100+ year old firearm technology, so close to a national election?
MA had precisely ZERO deaths from rifles in 2014, so what problem is this intended to solve?
"We'll fix those mass shooters in FL and CO by banning guns here in MA"?
Not to mention that the AG is making up her own definitions out of thin air, as opposed to using the definitions contained in the law itself.
Nowhere in the 1994 AWB does it mention "operating system" as a criteria. Nowhere.
On edit: To be clear, the MA ban is a word for word copy of the original federal AWB, so it doesn't have that either. The AG is inventing it out of thin air.
Would anyone really like to see a state-level trend of AGs making up the laws as they see fit?
Really?
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)I've never hidden my desire to erase guns from the face of the Earth, but this bill during a presidential election year -- especially what seems to be a tight one -- is dumb as shit. We obviously can't put the genie back in the bottle, but there ARE smart decisions/laws that could be made.
The way an AG decides to interpret and/or prosecute, though, depends upon the individual state. We ALREADY have fifty states with fifty legal systems, often radically different.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)So you agree 80% of Americans want assault rifles banned too.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Gun nuts VOTE. They vote, and vote, and vote again. Frankly, Donald Trump scares the shit out of me far more than any AK-47 ever could.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)G_j
(40,370 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 21, 2016, 09:05 PM - Edit history (1)
Interchangeable parts or same operating system, so XM-15 banned same as original AR-15, but Mini-14 not so much.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)It's a strange definition of duplicate or copy.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)that make it harder for idiots to obtain guns and ammo!
Rex
(65,616 posts)A deterrent is a great thing, way to go Massachusetts!
Calculating
(2,957 posts)I think the real issue is high-capacity magazines. An assault weapon isn't such a threat it it's limited by a 10 round magazine. Most of the mass killers have used 30+ round mags. I even own a few of these guns, and I feel a magazine ban is the most sensible regulation.
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)Mass is late.
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)It's in the constitution.
2nd amendment.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)That is in the Constitution, too.
(states do get to appoint officers and train (regulate) per the federal guidelines congress is also to come up with)
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)On how a state shall form a militia.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
How they are organized, armed and disciplined/regulated is the power given to congress.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)But that is an interesting argument, that states have control over their own "militias" (gun owners).
jmg257
(11,996 posts)by the states.
The militias - not so much. They have too vital a role when called forth in federal service to be allowed to be rendered ineffective by the states. {'well-regulated militias are necessary'}
Purposes laid out in the preamble and guarantees made in the Constitution are based on the role of the militias of the several states. They must be uniform, and they must be effective.