User Panel
Quoted:
Not legally. We fought, and won, against a SAFE style law last year. We are not going down without a fight. Fuck that whore Maura Healey. Bitch will get tarred and feathered. The old school way. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't actually see this happening. I can see it easily happening. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Not legally. We fought, and won, against a SAFE style law last year. We are not going down without a fight. Fuck that whore Maura Healey. Bitch will get tarred and feathered. The old school way. She is basing this on her "interpretation" of the law. This retroactive ban will be every bit as "real" as the "ban" on Glocks and the "ban" on mail-order ammunition. When has a decree by the MA AG ever been overturned? |
|
Well Scalia is dead, the court is 4-4 at best so why not try all this shit now.
If we lose Thomas or Alito its all over folks. #NeverHillary |
|
LOL.
Gun laws in liberal states are like speeding limits. Sometimes I'm under the limit, sometimes I'm at the limit... And other times I'm in a damn rush. |
|
Quoted:
It's not up on the MA AG site yet. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/20/the-loophole-mass-assault-weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html#comments Cold link View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Link OP? It's not up on the MA AG site yet. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/20/the-loophole-mass-assault-weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html#comments Cold link Why did you leave it cold? https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/20/the-loophole-mass-assault-weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html |
|
|
Yep, 6th comment:
tiredofwingnutz07/20/16 06:52 AM
GREAT first step! Thank you Ms. Healey. Although I disagree that we should let the ammosexuals keep their current ARs, I get it. Hopefully we can pass some future laws that deal with possession, I appreciate MA taking this common sense first step. View Quote |
|
Anyone have a source for this "news"? Sounds sketchy to me.
Edit: nevermind - posted above. |
|
if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon View Quote Does that include optics? |
|
|
|
Interesting. Shitty as hell if true but this is going to be the new things sweeping across the country. Can win at the federal level? They will just place bans in each state.
|
|
Quoted:
Nothing on GOALs website. But I contacted them. Globe article is an opinion pice by our AG. I seriously doubt it will hold up to any legal actions. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone from MA confirm this? Seems that it would be an easy google....it's not. Nothing on GOALs website. But I contacted them. Globe article is an opinion pice by our AG. I seriously doubt it will hold up to any legal actions. Just like the safe act wouldn't hold. It doesn't matter what's legal or not under our founding laws. It's how they interpret the law. |
|
Fuck the Boston Globe!
Using a picture of a grieving Ms. Gerald to push a gun control article! That pisses me off! Here's a fucking clue Boston Globe editor ... #BLM is a fucking terrorist orginization and responsible for that officers death NOT the damn gun!!! Go after their asses, you dumb fucks! |
|
Quoted: Then why did the law use these features as reason to ban them dumbfucks? So a bolt action AR15 would be banned because it shares components with the Semi AR15? And since banned semi AR15 use a gas/recoil system then all other semi auto rifles would also be banned? Seems like these 2 would be enough to challenge the interpretation goes beyond the law that was originally passed. We passed a law that says no exotic sports cars on the road will be allowed or copies of said vehicles. Well now we say copies include any car with same drive systems or cars that share interchangeable parts. Your car uses 4 round rubber devices that allow your car to speed. Yup its a copy + banned View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: From the attorney general of Massistan: 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. That will end now. On Wednesday, 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. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers. The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a "copy” or "duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a "copy” or "duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts... Then why did the law use these features as reason to ban them dumbfucks? So a bolt action AR15 would be banned because it shares components with the Semi AR15? And since banned semi AR15 use a gas/recoil system then all other semi auto rifles would also be banned? Seems like these 2 would be enough to challenge the interpretation goes beyond the law that was originally passed. We passed a law that says no exotic sports cars on the road will be allowed or copies of said vehicles. Well now we say copies include any car with same drive systems or cars that share interchangeable parts. Your car uses 4 round rubber devices that allow your car to speed. Yup its a copy + banned So, take them to court. 5 years, $5 million later, you are slapped down by a liberal judge. |
|
The AG is not the ATF. They can't create their own rules. They can only offer an opinion on current law.
Take the opinion, get denied by trying to do what the law says, call Nolo, and you have a simple case. |
|
Maura Healey – Verified account ?@MassAGO Today, we're taking steps to keep deadly assault weapons off our streets. We'll have more to say at 11 am. |
|
"Democrats don't want to take your guns"
I was just told this yesterday by a liberal |
|
Quoted:
Then why did the law use these features as reason to ban them dumbfucks? So a bolt action AR15 would be banned because it shares components with the Semi AR15? And since banned semi AR15 use a gas/recoil system then all other semi auto rifles would also be banned? Seems like these 2 would be enough to challenge the interpretation goes beyond the law that was originally passed. We passed a law that says no exotic sports cars on the road will be allowed or copies of said vehicles. Well now we say copies include any car with same drive systems or cars that share interchangeable parts. Your car uses 4 round rubber devices that allow your car to speed. Yup its a copy + banned View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
From the attorney general of Massistan: 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.
That will end now. On Wednesday, 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. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers. The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts... Then why did the law use these features as reason to ban them dumbfucks? So a bolt action AR15 would be banned because it shares components with the Semi AR15? And since banned semi AR15 use a gas/recoil system then all other semi auto rifles would also be banned? Seems like these 2 would be enough to challenge the interpretation goes beyond the law that was originally passed. We passed a law that says no exotic sports cars on the road will be allowed or copies of said vehicles. Well now we say copies include any car with same drive systems or cars that share interchangeable parts. Your car uses 4 round rubber devices that allow your car to speed. Yup its a copy + banned You are looking for logic. MA gun laws are driven by bigotry and hatred. Not logic. |
|
Quoted:
Why did you leave it cold? https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/20/the-loophole-mass-assault-weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Link OP? It's not up on the MA AG site yet. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/20/the-loophole-mass-assault-weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html#comments Cold link Why did you leave it cold? https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/20/the-loophole-mass-assault-weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html If you feel the need to click to one of the most liberal news sites, then you're more than welcome to copy paste. |
|
|
Fuck mass! I made a conscience decision to live in NH and retain my freedom when I was transferred to MA. My commute sucks but my gun rights matter more to me. I have zero sympathy for folks who choose to remain in Mass and then bitch about the gun and ammo laws there.
|
|
Quoted:
She is basing this on her "interpretation" of the law. This retroactive ban will be every bit as "real" as the "ban" on Glocks and the "ban" on mail-order ammunition. When has a decree by the MA AG ever been overturned? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't actually see this happening. I can see it easily happening. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Not legally. We fought, and won, against a SAFE style law last year. We are not going down without a fight. Fuck that whore Maura Healey. Bitch will get tarred and feathered. The old school way. She is basing this on her "interpretation" of the law. This retroactive ban will be every bit as "real" as the "ban" on Glocks and the "ban" on mail-order ammunition. When has a decree by the MA AG ever been overturned? Funny how I am having 400rds of 30-06 delivered tomorrow. |
|
|
Quoted:
Fuck mass! I made a conscience decision to live in NH and retain my freedom when I was transferred to MA. My commute sucks but my gun rights matter more to me. I have zero sympathy for folks who choose to remain in Mass and then bitch about the gun and ammo laws there. View Quote Same. I'll take a shitty commute and retain my civil liberties and freedoms, thank you very much. |
|
So this is a "directive" from the AG. Does it have any legal weight behind it? It is not a law so anyone that does not abide by it cannot be charged.
|
|
Hillary showed us there is no rule of law in this country, she is just following that trend.
|
|
Quoted:
Tinfoil hat time: May 24 the MA attorney general met with the white house to discuss gun control and the purpose of her meeting according to her speech (available on her website in .PDF) was to "share ideas and find solutions". Then this literally comes out of nowhere less than 2 months later. View Quote Tinfoil hat my ass. That is exactly what happened and anyone who doesn't think they are connected has their head in the sand. Both parties would like to see you completely disarmed, not even a fucking slingshot. |
|
Quoted:
Same. So is this just a re-interpretation of an existing law/ban? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
What did I miss, this seemed like it sprang up out of nowhere, quickly. I don't live in MA, but this pisses me off all the same. Same. So is this just a re-interpretation of an existing law/ban? +1, scrolling down hoping this has been answered. |
|
Quoted:
So this is a "directive" from the AG. Does it have any legal weight behind it? It is not a law so anyone that does not abide by it cannot be charged. View Quote No law that I can see. She will just threaten with lawsuits. Which has sorta worked for mail order ammo. Awaiting GOALs response. |
|
Jeebus! The birthplace of freedom, indeed. What a shitpot of traitors to our constitution.
|
|
Something uses the same trigger pin as an AR15?
Banned. I feel safer already. |
|
|
Quoted:
Same. So is this just a re-interpretation of an existing law/ban? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
What did I miss, this seemed like it sprang up out of nowhere, quickly. I don't live in MA, but this pisses me off all the same. Same. So is this just a re-interpretation of an existing law/ban? Sounds like a "deeming regulation" sort of thing done by the executive branch, rather than a new law from the legislative. |
|
Quoted:
+1, scrolling down hoping this has been answered. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What did I miss, this seemed like it sprang up out of nowhere, quickly. I don't live in MA, but this pisses me off all the same. Same. So is this just a re-interpretation of an existing law/ban? +1, scrolling down hoping this has been answered. They began floating this "interpretation" awhile ago. I know a guy who got his FFL about a year ago, and the MA representatives were telling him that any AR15 not owned prior to 1994 AND not present in the state was NOT eligible for transfer. Among the implications was the assertion that pre-ban firearms from other states could NOT be purchased from an out-of-state source and transferred to MA residents. I told him that he must have misunderstood what they were saying--and he replied emphatically that THIS is what they were saying the law was. Now they are pushing this message into the mainstream, via press release. |
|
|
Quoted:
Can anyone from MA confirm this? Seems that it would be an easy google....it's not. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Can anyone from MA confirm this? Seems that it would be an easy google....it's not. By Maura Healey July 20, 2016
Orlando. Baton Rouge. Falcon Heights. Dallas. Baton Rouge again. Five horrific headlines in five weeks. Each story unique in its circumstances, but bound by a common thread: human lives taken by a gun. There are myriad issues underlying each of these tragedies: fear, racism, mistrust, hate. These are critical issues that we, as a country, have an obligation to honestly and forthrightly address. And they’re issues my office is working hard to tackle alongside our partners in the community, in law enforcement, and in government. But there’s one issue that can be addressed right now — the proliferation of guns, particularly assault weapons. 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. It’s no surprise the Orlando killer chose an AR-15 style assault rifle. It’s a weapon of war, originally created for combat, and designed to kill many people in a short amount of time with incredible accuracy. It’s in the same category as weapons chosen by killers in Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino. These are not weapons of self-defense. They are weapons used to commit mass murder. And they have no business being in civilian hands. How in Massachusetts, then, home to some of the strongest gun laws in the country, do we allow people to buy these guns? The gun industry has found a way to exploit our laws, a loophole of potentially horrific proportions. And it’s time we act. 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. That will end now. On Wednesday, 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. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers. The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts. We recognize that most residents who purchased these guns in the past believed they were doing so legally, so this directive will not apply to possession of guns purchased before Wednesday. In the dozen years since the federal assault weapons ban lapsed, only seven states have instituted their own assault weapons ban. Many of those bans have been challenged (unsuccessfully) by the gun industry, and we anticipate our directive may be too. But our job is to enforce state laws and to keep people safe. This directive does both. In the face of utter inaction by Congress, states have a duty to enact and enforce laws that protect people from gun violence. If Washington won’t use its power to get these guns off our streets, we will. Not only do we have the legal authority to do so, we have a moral obligation to do so. Maura Healey is the attorney general of Massachusetts. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone from MA confirm this? Seems that it would be an easy google....it's not. By Maura Healey July 20, 2016
Orlando. Baton Rouge. Falcon Heights. Dallas. Baton Rouge again. Five horrific headlines in five weeks. Each story unique in its circumstances, but bound by a common thread: human lives taken by a gun. There are myriad issues underlying each of these tragedies: fear, racism, mistrust, hate. These are critical issues that we, as a country, have an obligation to honestly and forthrightly address. And they’re issues my office is working hard to tackle alongside our partners in the community, in law enforcement, and in government. But there’s one issue that can be addressed right now — the proliferation of guns, particularly assault weapons. 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. It’s no surprise the Orlando killer chose an AR-15 style assault rifle. It’s a weapon of war, originally created for combat, and designed to kill many people in a short amount of time with incredible accuracy. It’s in the same category as weapons chosen by killers in Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino. These are not weapons of self-defense. They are weapons used to commit mass murder. And they have no business being in civilian hands. How in Massachusetts, then, home to some of the strongest gun laws in the country, do we allow people to buy these guns? The gun industry has found a way to exploit our laws, a loophole of potentially horrific proportions. And it’s time we act. 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. That will end now. On Wednesday, 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. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers. The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts. We recognize that most residents who purchased these guns in the past believed they were doing so legally, so this directive will not apply to possession of guns purchased before Wednesday. In the dozen years since the federal assault weapons ban lapsed, only seven states have instituted their own assault weapons ban. Many of those bans have been challenged (unsuccessfully) by the gun industry, and we anticipate our directive may be too. But our job is to enforce state laws and to keep people safe. This directive does both. In the face of utter inaction by Congress, states have a duty to enact and enforce laws that protect people from gun violence. If Washington won’t use its power to get these guns off our streets, we will. Not only do we have the legal authority to do so, we have a moral obligation to do so. Maura Healey is the attorney general of Massachusetts. It is telling that this "legislative" act was enacted via press release/op ed. She met with Obama a month or so ago. This is all being choreographed for political effect. |
|
Quoted:
If you feel the need to click to one of the most liberal news sites, then you're more than welcome to copy paste. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Link OP? It's not up on the MA AG site yet. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/20/the-loophole-mass-assault-weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html#comments Cold link Why did you leave it cold? https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/20/the-loophole-mass-assault-weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html If you feel the need to click to one of the most liberal news sites, then you're more than welcome to copy paste. We have a whole thread about it, so........ |
|
|
I'm wondering whether or not seeing a rising wave of open carry in response to "Black Lives Matter" spooked the shit out of the "progressives". |
|
You know in 94-04 I just ignored that stupid ass law and nobody
Said shit to me, even my cop buddies. If I was in your state I would tell them to lick my balls. How can they even enforce that shit??! No serial ## on uppers etc so they can't prove shit |
|
This is clearly inspired by the ban that was passed in Maryland in 2013. (Firearms Safety Act 2013)
The language makes it obvious. One part of the Maryland ban includes a list of around a dozen rifles, and their "copycats", this is legally interpreted by the state police to mean that the major components are interchangeable. (It bans ARs other than HBAR, AKs, M1as, etc) For instance, piston ARs are legal, because their operation is substantially different from DI rifles. It will be interesting to see how they justify changing/tweaking/rewording a law that has already been passed, without voting on it. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.