New Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban

Via the Boston Globe. This was done entirely by executive fiat of the Attorney General. You can bet Bloomberg’s fingerprints are all over this:

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.

It won’t apply to firearms purchased before the new rule, but from hereon out, this is the new rule. Things are just going to continue to get worse in blue-model states that Dems control. The only way we’re going to save them is federal preemption, either by the courts or Congress, and if Hillary wins, you can forget the Courts. If you live in those states, I’m sorry, but that’s just how it is. And the worst part? Oregon, Colorado, Washington, all states that for now are blue but still good, are probably most in jeopardy. Pennsylvania is currently controlled by the GOP in both houses, but that won’t last forever.

Gun owners need to wake up, or things are going to get very, very bad in blue and purple states. If you’re in those states and still voting for Dems, you either a fool, or at the end of the day don’t really value your gun rights.

38 Responses to “New Massachusetts Assault Weapons Ban”

  1. Svi says:

    The most bizarre thing about this order was that she simply “clarified” the mass AWB by saying that if you own a ban compliant AR it is still an assault weapon, but she will use her prosecutorial discretion and let it slide if it was purchased before today. This is insane, she just made every mass gun owner that bought a “compliant” AR in the last 18 years into a felon at her discretion.

    • Brad says:

      Exactly right!

      Welcome to Blue State Law. Which is, the laws means whatever they say it means, when they say it, and only applies to the little people

  2. The Jack says:

    And what about the Transitive property?
    (A=B, B=C, thus A=C)

    If a pump action (or bolt action) AR15 is illegal because it has parts in common with a conventional AR.

    Does that mean that any other pump action (or bolt action) is illegal too?

    And thus any variations of /that/ third gun are illegal?

    Well, given how vague this “law” is I’m sure it’ll be applied against whomever the Mass state chooses to punish.

    • Windy Wilson says:

      Vagueness is not a flaw, Comrade, it is a feature! The lawmakers cannot have thought of every situation a counter-revolutionary enemy of the people might have plotted against the state, so definitions are not part of the law. It is the natural result of the living constitution, applied to the laws that are the “Progeny” of the Constitution.

    • Zermoid says:

      And don’t forget, ALL guns use common, interchangeable screws, springs, and pins to hold them together…..

  3. Weer'd Beard says:

    I just hope this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. ARs are selling like hot cakes here in Mass, and I can’t recall going to my gun club in recent years where one wasn’t on the firing line.

    Every year GOAL puts out a law to repeal the AWB in Mass….I’m just hoping this will piss enough people off that that bill will get some more traction.

  4. The complaints that the law is ‘vague’ emphasize that this is not a bug; it’s a feature.

    The Supreme Court (and many District Courts) have thrown out state gun laws because they are vague.

    And rightly so … how can anyone be expected to be ‘law abiding’ when the law is insufficiently specific?

    My guess is that this bunch of proposed laws will end up on the dung-heap of Constitutional Infringements because it’s impossible to obey.

    • Archer says:

      Vagueness is a feature, not a bug. Correct.

      SCOTUS (and lower courts) have thrown out gun laws because they were vague. Correct.

      But lawsuits can take years, and most gun owners (and many gun groups) don’t have the resources to wage a sustained legal battle. To the gun-controllers, this is also a feature, not a bug.

      AND, because the law is still (fairly) clear, but the MA AG is “clarifying” it to be vague by issuing her “opinion,” that is very likely not actionable to the courts unless/until someone is charged and convicted over it. Again, a feature, not a bug.

  5. Nick says:

    Time for the manufacturers to follow Barrett’s lead — and decline to sell or service firearms for any police agency in Massachusetts. No guns, no parts, no service.

    • Roger Wilson says:

      That gets my stamp of approval. Yes,follow Barret’s lead.

    • Jeremiah says:

      Extend that to the ammo manufacturers and sellers. If it is too dangerous for the civilian population, it is too dangerous for the police…

      Sad state of affairs where the Revolution started over the seizing of firearms.

    • Zermoid says:

      If it’s not available to all, it’s available to no-one in the state.
      Sounds fair to me!

  6. TS says:

    But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is.

    Yes, they took it upon themselves by reading the law and then making guns that comply with it.

    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’s rich. We’ve been telling them for 25 years that these features (that they say make a gun too assaulty for common citizens) don’t make a gun more lethal. And NOW that’s it time to expand the ban, they say, “you’re right.” Who didn’t see that coming?

    On the bright side, this can be used against any movement for national bans. We told everyone that “assault weapon” bans were only about taking a bite that they can chew and that they would come back for more. They said we were paranoid. Not only that, but they way they are expanding the ban- passing a law and then just changing it through the AG needs to be stressed heavily to whatever Fuddd are remaining on our side..

    • Archer says:

      We’ve been telling them for 25 years that these features (that they say make a gun too assaulty for common citizens) don’t make a gun more lethal. And NOW that’s it time to expand the ban, they say, “you’re right.”

      I’ve said elsewhere, they’re not exactly saying, “You’re right.” They’re twisting it around and saying the inverse of our argument.

      We said, “Flash suppressors, muzzle devices, folding stocks, etc. don’t make guns more lethal, so they should not be banned.”

      They are now effectively saying, “Flash suppressors, muzzle devices, folding stocks, etc. don’t make guns less lethal, so they may be banned.”

      Subtle difference — call it, “agreeing without agreeing to agree” if you want — but it’s there.

  7. Brad says:

    Sounds like Massachusetts copied the horribly written 1989 California ban. That poorly written legislation eventually came back to bite California and they lost a lot of ground in court, even though the core of the ban still stood.

    Of course, courts being courts, I expect in Massachusetts their courts will let the AG get away with anything.

  8. Brad says:

    Well said, Sebastian.

    Maybe we should start calling the Blue States something that better reflects what they are becoming, Police States!

  9. Bill Twist says:

    Notice the wording of “operating system”. Since that would cover gas operated semi-automatics, both piston operated (AK’s) and direct impingement (AR’s), all semi-autos that share that operating system would be banned. So would blowback firearms (Uzi, MAC-11 are blowback, and named).

    • Archer says:

      Heck, I think “operating system” could, in theory, be used to describe, “point, click, BANG”.

      IOW, all firearms manufactured in the last 400 years or so.

  10. Ian Argent says:

    Even NJ had to backtrack their similar AWB to be a “feature ban.”

    New Jersey law lists firearms that are prohibited “assault firearms.” N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1w.(1). In addition, the law provides that the term “assault firearm” includes, “Any firearm manufactured under any designation which is substantially identical to any of the firearms listed” in the law. N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1w.(2). Thus, a firearm is an assault firearm if it is included on the list of banned firearms or if it is manufactured under a different designation than a firearm on the list but is “substantially identical” to a specific listed firearm.

    (They then say that “substantially similar” means it has too many “bad” features off the list from the federal AWB feature ban)

    Which is nonsensical in its own right, because several of the “named” weapons do not have enough features to count under the feature test.

    • Ian Argent says:

      A NY Times article contemporaneous with the NJ AG’s “guidance.”

      What this indicates is that the MA AG believes that the courts will not follow precedent. That’s bad, folks.

      • The_Jack says:

        “What this indicates is that the MA AG believes that the courts will not follow precedent. ”

        Not necessarily.
        Say the courts strike this down?

        Does she actually /lose/?
        The odds of the courts striking down that AWB as written are vanishingly small.

        And the odds of her facing any personal consequences for her actions are even smaller.

        She doesn’t even lose money fighting this in court. (It’s not her money anyway)

        Meanwhile pro rights people have to spent /their/ money and people fighting this. Resources that could be used elsewhere.
        Instead the resources will be spent to /at best/ return to the status quo.

        And if the courts do uphold it she wins and has a great precedent for other AGs to take.

        Why wouldn’t she do this?

    • Chris says:

      The NJ law is written so that my 50+ year old Sears .22 is an illegal assault firearm because it holds too many rounds in its tube mag.

      • Ian Argent says:

        Isn’t that the one where, if it had .22lr stamped on it, you’d be fine? It’s just that it holds too many .22 short rounds?

  11. Harry Schell says:

    She isn’t Turkish, is she?

  12. Nate says:

    “…or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon”

    Okay, HOLD UP. What if, say, someone were to point out that something as simple as a SCREW or PIN is interchangeable with what’s considered banned?

    This could be the basis of a lawsuit to turn over the ENTIRE MA AWB!


    • Sebastian says:

      You won’t overturn anything in the 1st Circuit. Forget the courts. They won’t save you here unless we can get the Supreme Court sorted out, which means defeating Hillary.

      • Ian Argent says:

        If NJ and CA judges both overturned similarly overbroad AWB language…

        • The_Jack says:

          That was then, this is now.

          Besides, the Mass AG is rolling the dice.

          The thinking is that /eventually/ the courts might just let such language stand.

          And if the court doesn’t go her way. Well it’ll be like CA and NJ the previous law will still stand and they can try again.

    • The_Jack says:


      The /best/ you could hope for the lower and state courts is a return to the status quo.

      And really if the courts even bother to go “Nope too confusing” they’ll just tell the AG to come up with a better “test”.

  13. Nate says:

    Think of it a different way then, since the language is so broad, if it indeed covers “components” as basic as a screw or pin, or even use of materials such as a synthetic stock, we could easily get the “fudds” on our side by pointing out that their treasured quail gun or deer rifle is covered by the ban.

    Gather allies.

  14. Nate says:

    If this is pointed out, we’re talking potential class action lawsuit against the AG personally.

  15. Brad says:

    Don’t forget AG Maura Healey is one of the Gang of 17. The so-called “AG united for clean power” who are trying to squash free speech rights. So her outrageous exercise of illegal authority over guns is for her completely in character.

  16. Sigivald says:

    Ah, the lawsuits that are gonna come from this …

  17. Nate says:

    Yeah, especially since ammunition would be covered, also. This AG just opened up a potential vulnerability in the entire anti-gun movement that could cause it to collapse. Imagine 100 million gun owners signing onto a class-action suit at once.

  18. beatbox says:

    I did some checking:

    In 2014 there were 0 homicides with rifles. In fact, since 2009 there has been only two with rifles. (probably not even assault rifles)

    This is means scary rifles accounted for anywhere from 0%-.03% of all homicides.

  19. Ian Argent says:

    At least one anti is decorating their cupcakes that this appears to be a semi-auto ban.

    Which it basically is, of course; but will MA actually do it?

  20. Matt says:

    And the MA Legislature just told her she was creating new law out of thin air:

    So much for her “authority”.

  21. Chris says:

    There are planes,trains,and automobiles leaving my home state of Massachusetts,every single day. Would the last gun owner to leave,please turn out the lights?