They tried this in California, with their AR & AK Series language in the AW ban.....



The California State Supreme Court shot them down in the Harrott v County of Kings case..



Which said they had to be listed by Make/Model....



Which led to the whole OLL (Off List Lower) thing.......

Are there enough Massachusetts men with "assault rifles" to muster on Lexington Green in an orderly fashion for a protest? Figure 100 ought to be a good number to start. It could be on a weekend since they surely have jobs. Carrying their rifles of course.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

So, on Wednesday morning the AG announces the new policy and dealers believe that they have until the end of the day to stop selling.

Of course, sales blow through the roof and now Healey wants a take-back of every rifle sold that day, along with punishing the dealers.

http://commonwealthmagazine.org/guns/healey-triggers-gun-buying-frenzy/

Healey triggers gun-buying frenzy

2,500 assault weapons sold in one day in defiance of AG’s order

Jack Sullivan Jul 21, 2016

A GUN-BUYING FRENZY that resulted in 2,500 assault weapons being purchased Wednesday – one-fourth the total sold all of last year – has forced Attorney General Maura Healey into threatening dealers with criminal penalties and the loss of their licenses for trying to beat her crackdown on the rifles.

According to data from the state Firearms Records Bureau, gun enthusiasts bought 2,549 rifles on Wednesday, the same day Healey announced that her office would rigidly enforce a 1998 law that prohibits the sale of specific semi-automatic guns such as AK-47s and AR-15s, as well as “copies or duplicates of the weapons.” By contrast, 132 of the guns were sold on Tuesday and just 51 on Monday. About 10,000 of the guns were sold in 2015.

The purchases were in defiance of an order issued by Healey that none of the guns could be sold in Massachusetts after Tuesday. Now Healey, whose intent was to get rid of the weapons, finds herself in the awkward position of trying to undo a run on what she has called “weapons of war” after they’ve already been sold.

While Healey’s office remained silent on what would happen to those who bought the guns Wednesday, her spokeswoman said dealers could face criminal or civil sanctions for the sales. The statute calls for up to two years in jail for selling the banned guns.

The key issue is when Healey’s order took effect. In a directive made to the state’s 350 gun dealers on Tuesday she ordered them to cease selling the weapons “immediately.” At her press conference announcing the directive on Wednesday, she said none of the weapons could be sold after Tuesday. Her spokeswoman, however, said on Thursday that the attorney general’s directive took effect at the time of her announcement, presumably on Wednesday. (Healey also wrote about her new policy in an op-ed in the Boston Globe that appeared online on Tuesday and ran in the Wednesday paper.)

Healey said she was stepping up because of the scores of spree shootings that have killed dozens of people around the country. Surrounded by clergy, victims’ families, police chiefs, and prosecutors, she made the passionate plea to rid the state of the assault weapons like those used in the slaughter of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Connecticut, 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, and the killings of five Dallas police officers and three more in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Healey claims gun manufacturers make minor or cosmetic changes to the guns while maintaining the same functions and then market them as “Massachusetts compliant.” She said the directive was not a new rule or even a change but just an enforcement of the 18-year-old statute that she says has been abused by manufacturers.

“The gun industry doesn’t get to decide what’s compliant,” she said when making her announcement. “We do.”

She said people who purchased the rifles prior to her order would be able to keep them and no dealers would be prosecuted if they sold them before then.

Christopher Pinto, president of the advocacy group Massachusetts Gun Rights, Inc., of Worcester, claimed he bought an AR-15 for his wife on Wednesday to beat Healey’s directive and insisted he intends to keep it.

“What is she going to do, come to my house and get it?“ asked Pinto, who was in Cleveland as a delegate at the Republican National Convention.

A group of gun owners gathered at the State House Thursday evening to protest Healey’s action, with another rally planned on Saturday when the Legislature is in session. Many said Healey’s decision was not an enforcement of the law but rather stemmed from her interpretation based on what they say is her anti-gun stance. Most in attendance said they own the types of rifles Healey says are illegal. Even though she said she won’t take action against those who bought them before Wednesday, the protesters said they were concerned she could change her mind and arbitrarily confiscate their weapons in the future.

“The system is set up to debate and we can have due process,” said Archie Taylor, 45, of Dracut. “It’s not anybody’s right to tell us what we can protect ourselves with. Police and other law enforcement officials can have these guns but a private citizen can’t? Everyone is human, everyone is fallible. What makes them any more special than us?”

Good luck.

Except MA has already done this with Glock.

They jumped through all the hoops to meet compliance and got approval, but dealers still cant sell new Glocks, simply because.

Good luck OC'ing a gun here.

well, if she wasn't going to before, she probably is now....  How long before he's shot to death by SWAT during a no-knock raid?

I will never understand why gun owners assume all LEOs are pro-RKBA.

She's the one who tried to spring a trap in the middle of the night! That, somehow, posting an OpEd on a news website has the force of law and everyone should know about it and follow Die Fuhrer's  declared edict
Fuck her.

Exactly even the pistols are worthless outside of the wall.

The cops would be the last people I would be talking to right now if I was a gun owner there.

Oh yea not a chance

Same

He didn't make You a Deal you couldn't refuse?    



 

IOW, Y'all been screwed worse than Californian's were.....  



 

In the "guidance" Q&A section.  You can turn them in to your local PD or the State Police.  Maybe wait for a buyback program so you can trade in your rights for a $25 Walmart gift care.

No one needs those yucky things.  They can be melted down and made into something useful like man-hole covers.

Liberalism is truly a mental illness.

How many post ban, MA compliant Sport Utility Rifles are instate?  yea right.

Truer words have never been spoken

See... all you tin foil hatters....common sense gun laws "registration loophole" will not be used against you.

Doesn't this idea defy HER OWN interpretation that these firearms we're always banned under the 1998 law. This just shows how much she's reaching and her attempt to illegally coerce gun dealers to stop selling these arms. Her interpretation and Q&A flat out says they were always illegal, and I presume she thinks she could prove that in court? Wouldn't that mean the time of her announcement (or enforcement action or whatever) is immaterial?!?... Oh wait, she doesn't want to prove anything, she wants to force voluntary compliance under risk of prosecution. She knows this won't hold up, especially trying to prosecute past sellers/purchasers.

Unless it's Emergency Legislation, they'll have to wait till next year......  



 

Then fuck them.

Close the gun store, open "The Parts Palace and 80% Emporium".

Track that, bitch.

Talking about California.....





Who You said would try & One-Up, Y'all......




 
 

Far as I'm concerned, the AG does not have the right to reinterpret a law to create a new class of felons who were previously law-abiding people; one person doesn't have that right, only the legislature can do that.

This bitch needs to be in prison for violating her oath.

 

Well, one thing we know for sure is that this debacle will make the gunstores'  lawyers rich.

I don't have a single CoC compliant thing to say other than Molon labe.

Won't be surprised if the CT AG (Jepson) tried to do something similar since the idiotic law passed on 4/4/13 has similar copy/duplicates language in it. But CT has a specific statute mandating prebans (anything manufactured prior to 9/13/94) and the DEEP/SLFU/State Police have apparently previously issued a directive that outlines a three part test to determine what is a copy or duplicate under CT's current law. For Connecticut one has to answer YES to all three of the following questions for firearm to be a copy or duplicate of those banned by name firearms (like all AR-15s) added on 4/4/13.

1. Physical Appearance: Does the "action" of the firearm look like that of a firearm specifically named in C.G.S. 53-202a(1)(B), 53-202a(1)(C) or 53-202a(1)(D)?

2. Functionality: Does the "action" of the firearm work like that of a firearm specifically named in C.G.S 53-202a(1)(B), 53-202a(1)(C) or 5302-2a(1)(D)?

3. Interchangeable Parts: Are the major components of the "action" (i.e., the bolt, the operating rod, the trigger and/or the sear) an its stock configuration interchangeable with that of a firearm specifically named in C.G.S 53-202a(1)(B), 53-202a(1)(C) or 53-202a(1)(D)?

Answer NO to any one of those three questions, the firearm is not considered a copy or duplicate. The firearm (rifle/pistol) would then have to get past the single evil feature ban to be CT legal. Semiauto shotgun feature ban is a bit different with the gun having to have both features (pistol grip and folding/collapsing stock) and then if it has two evil features from the pre 4/4/13 law to be illegal.

Wow.

I have been less than impressed with MA when I visited.  I went up there for a service rifle match a few years ago, and had someone harass me for open carrying my M9.  While in a Marine Corps uniform.  
At a shooting range. Fucking tards.

*ETA Present company presumably excluded, of course.

*ETA2  Do you really think if there was an organized, fall in formation style protest on Lexington Green of all places, with 100 dudes slinging ARs, that the local police would want to fuck that even with the neighboring city's dick?

It could be 10,000 dudes with rifles and it would still be zealously suppressed... Later, against individuals as they sleep.

Yeah they would all be unloaded. Rifles would only be symbolic. No way gun owners would shoot police attempting to arrest them enforcing unconstitutional laws.

Lol. I don't care what the AG's "opinion" is. What does the actual law say? What's to keep me from laughing in their face and continue selling black rifles? Is the law really ambiguous or something?

The law says copies and duplicates are banned. Due to the circuit it's in, you have a high probability of loosing a criminal prosecution.

 

It's bullshit. MA AWB law follows the same definition of "semi-automatic weapon" as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30).  Which everyone followed legally for 10 years federally.

In my mind a copy of a Colt AR15 has to have a removable flashider, bayonet lug, ect as defined under the US 7444775 B1 Patent.

Section B calls out that its not a semi-automatic weapon if it has a detachable magazine and doesnt have more than 2 features.

Its fucking bullshit. If the Healy was in charge, ever single person that followed the Federal AWB for 10 years was felon.

Fuck that dumb cunt.

I'm not going to be able to make the GOAL rally tomorrow (tomorrow's my only chance to catch up with friends I haven't seen in years), but good luck. I'll be praying for y'all.

Fuck the AG.

Just read the law state and expired federal law. They only listed a couple of guns in the MA ban. For example I don't see how they could stop the Kel-Tec RFB from being sold in MA. It's neither a duplicate or copy of any of those guns listed.