TexasCHLforum.com

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey BANS Sale Of AR-15s…
The source is biased no question, but the gist of the article seem correct.
http://conservativetribune.com/attorney ... manualpost

The Mass AG has decided she knows what the people, want, even if that's not what they want, nor the political appointees enacted by law.

Maybe when the bill is tallied up for the lawsuits the state will have to defend, the people will wake up and see just how much she will have cost them.

Or to quote the greatest philosopher ever, Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as Stupid Does"

Bummer. There goes my plan to go to Mass for a tax break...

I expect nothing less from New England liberals.

Democracy died in Massachusetts when it became a 1 party state. Law making by decree. They know that even in leftist Mass. any such law would never had made it.

Here is the direct link to the Op-ed from the Mass-AG

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... l#comments

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.

I may just be a country bumpkin, but I don't see how a flash suppressor or a folding/telescoping stock increases the "lethalness" of a weapon. But it sure gives those lefties a warm and fuzzy feeling making the guns less scary looking.

Flightmare wrote:Here is the direct link to the Op-ed from the Mass-AG

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/201 ... l#comments

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.

I may just be a country bumpkin, but I don't see how a flash suppressor or a folding/telescoping stock increases the "lethalness" of a weapon. But it sure gives those lefties a warm and fuzzy feeling making the guns less scary looking.

Those small "tweaks" were what they used to define an "assault weapon" So now that the very things they decreed illegal, are not there, they are creating a new law that was never passed by their own legislature, or signed by the Governor. I guess now instead of a commonwealth, Massachusetts, is now a dictatorship?

If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon

Well, there goes any gun duplicating the AR-15's "operating system," by which I assume they mean a trigger.

I can see the AG spending millions of taxpayer dollars defending these stupid decrees. But then Massachusetts and Connecticut have both been driving business away from their states. Pretty soon they will have no tax money coming in from the companies that left their states. Then the people will be really in a bad way when they start to tax them to death. And they thought the taxes were bad there already.

Yeah they way they worded it means they can ban just about all of the guns in the state.

Hard to believe this is where our revolution began. Present leadership would still have us a colony of England.

It's too bad that Smith and Wesson, and Kahr, have not moved out of the same
state that so hinders the sale of their products.

SIA

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:It's too bad that Smith and Wesson, and Kahr, have not moved out of the same
state that so hinders the sale of their products.

SIA

Hey S&W and Kahr - come on down to Texas! You can build all the guns you want here.

The list of non-assault weapons for Massachusetts is ridiculous. It says any Ruger Mini 14 or any Springfield M1A is NOT and assault weapon. Later it says a semi-auto rifle that accepts a detachable magazine capable of holding more that 5 rounds is an assault weapon.

I would have thought they would define the M1A SOCOM 16 CQB as an assault weapon.


Reading my own post it sounds like I'm advocating adding more rifles to the ban. My intent is to show how ambiguous the list is.

TxRVer wrote:The list of non-assault weapons for Massachusetts is ridiculous. It says any Ruger Mini 14 or any Springfield M1A is NOT and assault weapon. Later it says a semi-auto rifle that accepts a detachable magazine capable of holding more that 5 rounds is an assault weapon.

I would have thought they would define the M1A SOCOM 16 CQB as an assault weapon.


Reading my own post it sounds like I'm advocating adding more rifles to the ban. My intent is to show how ambiguous the list is.

That's the whole problem with bans like this, if you can't define it, how can you make illegal? But of course that is not their goal, they want to lump a bunch of features together, make it ambiguous, and disallow almost any firearm. I guarantee the the MA AG couldn't explain any of the the things she wants to ban, she is just regurgitating Bloomberg rhetoric.