BREAKING: Massachussetts Set To Prohibit The Sale of ALL “Assault Weapons”?

image

I am going to have to tread very lightly here to steer clear of a full-blown article on politics. But, news is news. The Attorney General of Massachusetts is announcing that neutered “assault weapons” currently sold in the commonwealth without features like flash hiders, bayonet lugs, collapsible stocks and magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds will no longer be available for sale.

From the opinion piece written by the AG in this morning’s 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.

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.

Gun Owners Action League – GOAL – http://www.goal.org
361 W. Main St.
Northborough, MA. 01532

Phone: (508) 393-5333
Fax: (508) 393-5222
staff@goal.org


NRA-ILA – https://www.nraila.org



Pete

LE – Science – OSINT.
On a mission to make all of my guns as quiet as possible.
Pete.M@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • JT

    Its incredible how the state AG can just make up these rules that impact the citizens rights.

    • Rob

      Its almost like he is trying to make up reasons for people to dislike that armpit of a state…when there are already so many reasons.

      • snakebit

        She. The AG is Democrat (naturally) Maura Healy.

    • snakebit

      MA state AGs have a long and shameful history of making up law as they go, dating back to Scott Harshbarger asserting his authority to unilaterally regulate firearms under the guise of “product safety,” despite the fact that there were no cases of anyone being harmed due to firearms that were defective in design, materials, or manufacture. To this day, all handguns sold in MA must be submitted to a state-approved lab for destructive testing and many compliant guns aren’t available because the manufacturers haven’t submitted them as it’s not worth it for the limited potential market in MA. So regulations that were touted as intended to get cheap, low-quality “Saturday night specials” off the market have been used to keep most of the high-end guns out of MA. And since we have one-party Democrat rule in MA, the legislature won’t even comment on this latest usurpation of their authority.

    • Cory C

      I think this whole thing is silly and I disagree with the position she’s taking on gun laws, but it is not at all uncommon for AGs to do so, nor is it illegal or an overreach of their authority in most cases. For instance, in my state of Texas, lawyers are allowed to solicit business from prospective clients through the mail, but only if they have their marketing materials approved by the State Bar’s advertising review committee, which is very harsh in their review. Nevertheless, lawyers can do it, only they must wait 30 days after the event before contacting the prospective client through the mail. Well, our AG was asked to review this policy as it relates to criminal law matters. He ultimately concluded that the law was designed to protect car accident victims (and other personal injury victims) from getting bombarded by lawyer solicitations while they are trying to get their bearings after an accident. As such, he said that the rules concerning lawyer advertising for injury and death cases were proper and that they balanced the lawyers right to free (though regulated) speech with the prospective client’s right to privacy. Our AG reasoned that a 30 day window gave people enough time to think about what happened to them. But lawyers bothering them before that time was an invasion of privacy. However, he reasoned that criminal defendants have immediate legal concerns and often don’t know where to turn. So, he relaxed the rule as it relates to lawyers soliciting clients by mail in criminal matters.

      My point is that it is certainly possible for an AG to interpret a law in such a way that they are overstepping their bounds, and I really don’t know enough about this MA law to state an opinion as to whether or not that’s what happened here. But the act of an AG choosing to offer an interpretation of a law and then outline an enforcement strategy is not an inherent overreach of their authority. In fact, it is one of their primary functions. For instance, when our firm requests production from certain government defendants, it is commonplace for the attorney for said defendant to write a letter to the AG asking them to interpret the law and advise them as to whether or not they have to comply with our request. That’s just one example, but believe me when I tell you that interpreting the law is one of the tasks of an AG.

      I hope that didn’t come out as condescending at all. Just trying to shed some light on the topic that most folks don’t ever have a reason to contemplate.

  • Sianmink

    So since Law Enforcement has no need for weapons of war and mass destruction, there’s no carveout exception for them right?

    • Anon

      No, you see, their lives are more important than some lowly plebeian such as yourself.

      • john huscio

        Unless I’m black.

    • Brocus

      BlueLivesMatter

      • Mike_88

        Blue lives gonna be knocking on doors soon. “I’m just doing my job” remember?

        • Captain Obvious

          Nazi prison guards were just doing their job too..now they are being prosecuted for war crimes. Hopefully the same will happen to the police who participate in confiscation.

          • Bob

            I think there is a difference between loading people into gas chambers and taking assault weapons from people. I’m not comfortable advocating the deaths of police officers I know if such a thing were to come to pass.

          • snakebit

            Advocating for confiscation IS advocating for the death of police officers. Even if only 1% of gun owners resist with force and shoot one LEO each, that would include just about every cop in the country. I suspect they’d decline to continue kicking in doors long before that point. That said, they’re not proposing confiscation in MA, only future sales. All it will do is drive up prices, as intended. 30 years after the AWB, you can still walk into a gun store in MA and legally buy pre-ban 30-round magazines, albeit at 2-3X the price of new equivalents sold in free states.

          • Bob

            Just to be clear, I was and am not advocating for confiscation. I am not particularly excited by assault weapons, having more of a bolt action Fudd gun fetish, but I am not against other firearms. I’m just saying I don’t think cops confiscating firearms is on the same level as the atrocities that took place in WW2.

          • snakebit

            I didn’t think you were advocating confiscation, just pointing out the consequences. And I’d also point out that confiscating guns *preceded* the atrocities of WWII.

          • Bob

            I sincerely doubt that the loss of the 2nd Amendment would result in death camps. It hasn’t in any of the other first world countries since WW2. On the other hand I am nit tempted to try and see…

          • KestrelBike

            err, you don’t need static “camps” to have a bad time. See any number of genocides that have occurred where civilians have been disarmed/forbidden from bearing arms. Cambodia, Uganda/Sudan/*anywhere in africa*, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.

          • Bob

            Third world countries. Tell me when Britain (one of the most similar countries to the US) starts genocide because they took guns away from the civies.

          • Sianmink

            We’re much more like Mexico than we are like Britain.

            And it’s clear what’s happening south of the border to disarmed citizens.

          • oldman

            You forget the British empire How many native peoples did they massacre to preserve the Empire Look at Africa and India. The English are not without blood on there hands.

          • jamezb

            Britain is going to hell in the wake of Brexit.. Xenophobia is running rampant. You might wanna watch some news.

          • AirborneSoldier

            I fear xenophobia less than actual cases of rape, murder, beheading, assault perpratrated by recent “immigrants” who have no plan to assimilate.

          • Francisco Machado

            Banning private ownership of firearms and confiscating them didn’t cause genocide – it just kept the disarmed people from effectively interfering with those implementing it. I assume you do not consider Germany sufficiently like the United States to serve as an example. Attempted confiscation of firearms was one of the triggers of the American revolution.

          • d.dolcater

            Said the Germans in ’33.

          • FloridaFriend

            “I sincerely doubt that the loss of the 2nd Amendment would result in death camps. It hasn’t in any of the other first world countries since WW2”

            See now there’s the flaw in your argument. The US has turned into a banana republic and is no longer ‘first wold’ in many respects.

          • LG

            Sorry, my reply was to Bob. Bob, you sound like a good German in 1933. What had to be done was for the good of the country. The politicians know best.

          • Bob

            No, I don’t think gun confiscation would be for the good of the country or that politicians know best. I merely question whether police officers deserve to be executed or whatever for the as yet hypothetical confiscation of assault weapons.

          • raz-0

            You pick sides, you get what goes with the picking. The police think they are helping most of the time, but they are enforcing a broken system more often than not these days.

            Case in point, traffic citations. Sounds good, but using them as revenue has messed things up. The out of pocket cost for a 2 point ticket where I live runs about $1000 by the time you are about 2 months out. Median income for those employed is $53k. The average household is one paycheck from not paying bills.

            Historically the punishment for 10mph hasn’t been financially breaking people. This seems severe to me. The police are the face of that messed up policy. They keep it in place by force as that is really their only tool. As more and more policies are enforced where compliance is difficult or impossible by those targeted, the only option will be to resist force, and that only works a few ways.

            That’s IF they play the game straight, which most don’t to varying degrees. (example, just put illegal steroid use and drunk driving on the table, add those who look the other way when it is done blatantly, and you are near 100% in most departments). In that case it gets even worse.

          • Big Daddy

            WTF is an assault weapon?

          • JumpIf NotZero

            It’s a gun that has list of features they say isn’t important now….. NOW…. No one knows what an assault weapon is, but they’ll know when they see it.

          • Billy Jack

            Assault is that French car company

          • oldman

            That is Renault Pronounced Ren no.

          • Billy Jack

            I know pronounced I – Noh . It’s a joke. How does assault sound when pronounced like Renault? 😉

          • nicholsda

            Those that know, don’t buy Renault. And we still say it as Ren ault after having lived in the areas where they were common as an insult to them.

          • oldman

            A friend lives in France she asked a french coworker what the best car to buy was his answer was an imported one.

          • nicholsda

            Now to be honest, sitting in a metal box outside is a Renault Dauphine transaxle. They were used here in the 1/4 midget race cars.

          • jamezb

            In the PRM, it’s defined as damn near anything with a magazine, now.

          • nicholsda

            Which would mean just about anything except a single shot rifle and a revolver.

          • mazkact

            claw hammer, if it’s black.

          • tyrannyofevilmen

            The way it works is, they confiscate the guns first and THEN they send you to the gas chambers.

          • Tess

            Your bolt action rifle would hardly be immune, Bobby. It’s divide and conquer and you fell for it. A firearm is a firearm if you haven’t learned yet. Let’s say that while a confiscation program is underway… what’s to stop them from sending robots with bombs into the house? It’s about “officer safety” after all. That sounds like an atrocity to me.

          • Bob

            I did not fall for it. I predictpredict they will go for assault weapons first, then “high capacity” pistols, followed by shotguns, then finally those scary sniper rifles of which I am fond of. I happen to be close to the last in line is all.

          • oldman

            No, they will go after the Sniper rifles after the assault rifles then the hi cap hand guns the shotgun will be last just after the single stack pistols.

          • Bob

            Why? Hand guns can be used for lots of kills like the Virginia Tech incident, and the news about such things is used as justification for removal of such weapons. Can’t recall anyone racking up lots of kills with a bolt action recently.

          • jamezb

            It doesnt matter what they use. The key is the media grasping the word “sniper rifle” like they have “assault rifle” you will note the recent Dallas murderer was a “SNIPER” – the weapon of choice hasn’t been the focus of much attention this time,
            Look for that attention to go towards the word “SNIPER” and pretty soon every rifle with a SCARY BLACK SCOPE will be a targeted HIGH POWERED LONG DISTANCE SNIPER MURDER-MACHINE..
            (you don’t need that to shoot a DUCK or a DEER)

          • Douglas Self

            The Mauser Karabiner 98(k), a bolt-action with a five-round magazine, did just fine for the Wehrmacht. Of course, they also developed the first mass-deployed (well, as much as they could produce/distribute) select-fire weapon, the StG44, which Hitler, after FINALLY being convinced of its worth (initially Hitler had rejected any sort of new battle rifle), dubbed the Sturmgewehr, which translates as “assault rifle”, so you can thank Der Fuhrer for the terminology.

          • AirborneSoldier

            I think tphey will announce their list and firsy make an example of those who resist.
            the rest will wet their pants and turn in whatever they have. Food vouchers will be given, control gained, game over. Make up your mind now. You will surrender if you dont think this through.

          • mazkact

            I will admit that when the AWB came in I was somewhat of a Fudd about it and cared little about AR’s or Ak’s. I was happy(and still am) with my revolvers,Garand and bolt actions. I am older now and can see that it was an incremental step to confiscation of all arms.

          • Douglas Self

            That’s all it ever is. The discussion is about how bad firearms in the hands of private citizens are, NOT about specific features and why they should be outlawed. The founders of our country were prescient to pass the Second Amendment, especially the part about ‘shall NOT be infringed”. They knew exactly how disarming the public could happen.

          • Secundius

            Just like “Molon Labe” and the “Bundy’s”, who Gave Up “Virtually” without a Fight. I guess “Martyrdom” WASN’T in THEIR Cards. To Bad they didn’t tell “Trash Bag Man” THAT…

          • nicholsda

            But some of us have weapons that would put those robots out of action. Officer safety is not violating my rights by trying to enforce some law that a liberal voted for.

          • d.dolcater

            The atrocities that took place in WWII had to start somewhere, and they began with the complacency of the German people, who said “oh, that’s not so bad” in 1933, and in 1945 said “what were we thinking”?

          • Bob

            Again, are the people in other first world countries such as those in the UK being treated to all the horrors of the Nazis due to their loss of firearms? Everyone loves to go on and on about Germany and their loss of firearms, but how does that really predict what would happen here in the US? Unless we get an endless stream of Trumps for presidents from now on…

          • oldman

            It only takes one as Hitler proved.

          • jamezb

            It is a media myth that EU and non EU European countries usually don’t allow their citizens to own guns. Many European countries do.. there are some countries more restrictive than others, and some countries little if really any more restrictive than our own, – The moderately restrictive ones are often less restrictive than some of our states. True the UK has crazy gun laws, but even there you can own some types of guns if you can jump the hoops.
            (Google is your friend)

          • oldman

            Look at the Swiss there the government issues the guns to its citizens.

          • Douglas Self

            The Swiss are fairly much a mono-cultural society, in spite of having FOUR official languages. Probably their greatest heritage is that they want to be left the hell alone in their hills and mountains, and they’ve managed to stay out of all the wars in Europe. Interesting that the Nazis contemplated an invasion of Switzerland and for once Hitler listened to his generals…that it would prove a tough nut to crack.

          • oldman

            A tough nut is a serious understatement.

          • AK

            That’s true, and now with the EU commission trying to restrict access to legal owners, there has been a real grassroots counter reaction as of late. I live in Finland and own an AK, AR, FAL, a modern combat pistol, etc. legally, with no mag restrictions. But we do have our own retarded gun laws, such as minimum lengths of firearms. Criminals of course don’t have to care about them (and don’t).

          • Stephen Paraski

            Google Poland and Hungarian Gun Laws and compare to German Gun Laws. But Putin is our enemy?

          • Harry’s Holsters

            It’s the start of it. Most of the atrocities started after the confiscation.

          • Bob

            But what makes you think that the loss of firearms will turn the US into Nazi Germany? Did it happen to the UK? Australia? I think it is a fallacy to assume no firearms = death camps and genocide.

          • oldman

            Look around things like the patriot act more or less gutting the 4th amendment. The authorized use of torture ( enhanced interrogation ) holding of prisoners without any form of due process (Gitmo and other places) for indefinite periods. We have started down that road already.
            Ben Franklin said it best “When you give up you rights for security you wake up in the morning to find you have neither.”

          • Rock or Something

            Criticism of the Patriot Act not withstanding, I find it vexing that people keep trying to apply both the U.S. Constitution and Geneva Convention to foreign combatants who don’t fall under either legal constructs.

            The quote you were (I guess) referring to “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” was originally used in a letter by Franklin to the Governor of Pennsylvania in 1755.

            “The letter was a salvo in a power struggle between the governor and the Assembly over funding for security on the frontier, one in which the Assembly wished to tax the lands of the Penn family, which ruled Pennsylvania from afar, to raise money for defense against French and Indian attacks. The governor kept vetoing the Assembly’s efforts at the behest of the family [Penn], which had appointed him. So to start matters, Franklin was writing not as a subject being asked to cede his liberty to government, but in his capacity as a legislator being asked to renounce his power to tax lands notionally under his jurisdiction. In other words, the “essential liberty” to which Franklin referred was thus not what we would think of today as civil liberties but, rather, the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interests of collective security.

            https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said#.UvvR12RDtZs

          • oldman

            Thank you for clarifying the Quote. The point I was trying to make is We as a nation have surrendered to the politics of fear.
            We surrendered much of our 4th amendment rights when they signed the patriot act into law and they did it with barely a whimper from us the people.
            They set up a concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay To keep us safe from terrorists.
            They authorized torture so they could get information again to keep us safe.
            They hold people indefinitely without recourse to any form of due process.
            If this does not sound ominous to you go look at 1930s / 1940s Germany.
            Or any other repressive regime you care to name.
            Calling them something other then solder is a fiction created to get around both US and international law.
            They are using the fear of the Muslim boogyman the same way Hitler used the Jewish boogymen.

          • Juanito Ibañez

            “Waiting periods are only a step.
            Registration is only a step.
            The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.”
            –Janet Reno, former U.S. Attorney General under Bill Clinton

          • Harry’s Holsters

            What would the US do if the UK or Australia started death camps? We hold the balance of power.

          • jamezb

            Have you somehow missed who the presidential candidates are?
            Powermad and Powermadder?
            Mr. Doesn’t acknowledge the Constitution,
            and Mrs. Wants to get rid of the Constitution?
            Do you think Trump wouldn’t like to gas Islamics and Mexicans?
            Do you think Hillary wouldn’t use the army against the people?
            Really? –

          • ostiariusalpha

            Too true.

          • AirborneSoldier

            Dont equivocate trump with hillary. Trump wont gas mexicans, just return them to their lawful LEGAL domiciles, not here. Hillary has had people around her who actually have espoused concentration camps for conservatives. Funny that Jackson and the trail of tears, roosevelt and internment of Japenese, now they would lock us up. Not on my watch.

          • mazkact

            Patton rolling on WWI Vets in D.C,Ludlow,Kent State,Ruby RIdge,Waco just to name a few. It has happened before and can happen again. We need to know our history and not forget it.

          • Francisco Machado

            I find it hardly irrelevant that the Democrats are seriously proposing RICO prosecution against scientists who disagree with their AGW ideology. They feel justified in going to that extreme because they know they’re ideology is good and right, that they are serving the best interests of the people. They also know that legal ownership of guns by private citizens is wrong, that any means by which it can be made illegal and the guns confiscated is not only justified but is incumbent upon them to exercise whatever actions are necessary to achieve it. People who know what’s best for others (particularly those who exempt themselves from the laws they would enact) and are determined to impose it are greatly to be feared and should never, ever be given the power to do so.

          • LG

            That sounds like a good German in 1933.

          • RocketScientist

            I didn’t believe this at first, so as an engineer I ran the numbers. Taking an estimated 60 million households in the US with a gun in it (best most recent estimate I could find), at 1% that is 600,000 households resisting seizure with force. Best most recent estimate I could find of total police force in the US (including federal, state and local LEOs) is around 900,000, per Nat’l Law Enforcement Officers Memorial fund, who keep very detailed records about that sort of thing. That’s 2/3 of ALL LEOs at all levels across the country dead. Hell, even if only 1% of 1% fight back and take out a LEO, that’s still something like 6,000 dead officers!!

          • toms

            Police around here are pretty pro second amendment. I think the number who want or are willing to do something like confiscate weapons is pretty small. The police are not the problem. They are low on the totem pole of infringement.

          • They’d follow orders eventually on most any approved operation.

          • nicholsda

            Correct. At least 50% would toss their badges on the desk and walk out. Then the other 45% would say not us, we ain’t that stupid and refuse to go out of the building. That would leave about 5% at max that would attempt to take the firearms by force and only if they were in a group of about 20 to 1. And many forces can’t muster that many people on a good day. After the first raid where the people shot back, that 5% would go back and not come out again.

          • Juanito Ibañez

            What you are overlooking is that Smith&Wesson builds their M&P™ line of ‘Modern Sporting Rifles’ there in MA – and since S&W isn’t going to ‘give’ their rifles away, this ‘re-interpretation’ of the MA ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ will prevent S&W from selling their products – ANYWHERE (unless they build them in MA, then ship them out to a company warehouse elsewhere outside MA and ‘sell’ them exclusively from there).

          • d.dolcater

            Prison guards didn’t “load people into gas chambers”.

          • Bob

            Fair enough. I still don’t see how going the way of the UK as far as guns go will result in Nazi level treatment of the American people.

          • Big Daddy

            I said it before you need to do some reading on history Bob. How to enslave a population, fact is the first thing you do is take away their ability to fight back, take their guns, weapons whatever.

          • Bob

            This is not news to me, I just don’t buy the premise that the US will go full Nazi mode the minute firearms are out of the equation. I don’t care for our government, I think things will come to some kind of revolution at some point, but I’m skeptical it will resemble 1940s Germany. There are some big differences between us and Nazis. Freaking out about a worse case possibility, when there are many other issues, just seems a little ridiculous. Yes, it could happen, but how likely is it really?

          • Big Daddy

            I’m almost 60, at one time I felt the same way. yet over time I have seen things , a lot of things. How the generations have changed yet youth remains the same, their lack of knowledge, caring/morals and common sense seems lacking compared to the past. They are more easily fooled and lead these days as with all young people, this generation seems the worst. I have to think anything is possible, the people now have tools they did not have in the past, the media tools, the psychological testing to manipulate the minds of the young. The science of manipulation is just that now, a science. How many dollars are spent by companies on studies to try to get people to buy their products. The Nazis were amateurs compared to the corporate masters and oligarchs of today.

          • I think they’ll give them up here in the US, perhaps after all our deaths.

          • jamezb

            Denial that such could happen makes it so much easier to ignore it if and when it does. Enjoy it.

          • AirborneSoldier

            Not right away. But how long will it be? Once you lose a right you NEVER get it back. They want to jail climate change deniers, right now. Think it impossible? We no longer have a United States, no more Constitutional government.

          • jamezb

            Would 1/2 nazi level be acceptable to you then? How about 2/3?
            I’m sure you are on board for a simple 1/4.
            We can thin the herd of undesirables –
            – as long as we don’t invade Poland?

          • Francisco Machado

            As much oligarchy as can be imposed without inciting effective backlash – Centralized control of healthcare (Obamacare), education (Common core), law enforcement (proposed national control of police), business (Corporatism, 4,000 regulations written in the first half of this year, subsidies, “operation choke point,” minimum wage, work week hours reduction, ACA regulations, “studies” — like Keystone), and incremental moves in the direction of gun registration and control, effective “Criminal Protection” bills. These were not “built in” to our nation but have developed as we have grown government to its current massive, intrusive inefficient size.

          • AirborneSoldier

            Because the american left has a clear relationship with marxists going back many years. Americans are too stupid today to read anything, so they think this is recent. It is not.

          • Big Daddy

            Than who did it? Nurses aids?

          • LG

            Actually, if one studies the history of the T4 project, from Templestrasse 4 the original headquarters for euthanasia, the original heads and workers of the concentration camps were preferentially recruited from the medical fields. Since the “mentally infirm” had to be removed from society, it was a very easy step to the “politically unreliable”. It is ALL ONE STEP AT A TIME!

          • Big Daddy

            I think you need to do some reading on how the Nazi too power.

          • oldman

            If they confiscate the guns there will be little to stop them loading people into gas chambers. It is all to easy to loose control of the government. Look at what our choices are for president two extremely bad choices and only a very slim chance for a third party option.

          • d.dolcater

            If they tried that here (Texas), they wouldn’t be around for a trial.

          • Harry’s Holsters

            Any federal government will be hard pressed to get state and county level officers to participate. Especially in the rural areas. A lot of people would be resigning or not showing up for work. That’s across most of the 50 states.

          • oldman

            LOL In some rural areas law enforcement is out gunned and over matched by the fire power in the average gun safe. I lived in WV my neighbor had more firepower then all the county law informant put together corse there were only 4 officers in sheriffs department including the sheriff.

          • Harry’s Holsters

            Doesn’t have anything to do with being out gunned. They won’t turn on their community like that. Most of the deputies in my area have more in their safe in terms of long guns than the whole department. They don’t want to raid themselves!

          • oldman

            Cant argue with you on that point either all I was doing was pointing out the inequality between law enforcement and the civilians in weight of fire power available to each.

          • Max Glazer

            How it should be

          • Big Daddy

            That’s what our Governor Abbott tried to do and the liberal idiots didn’t get it. The Army had no right and justification to pull off their so called training exercise here and had the gall to try and confiscate local firearms for fear of their troops getting shot. They broke the law with the OK from the feds and Abbott said sure under our watchful eyes. yet people called Abbott an idiot, they didn’t see the harm, liberals are insane, ignorant and just plain brain dead.

          • rangerchuck

            An invasive species, not native to the planet apparently.

      • Loog Moog

        BLACK GUNS MATTER !

        • AirborneSoldier

          All guns matter. We better hang together, or we will surely hang seperately

    • KestrelBike

      lol wut could possibly go wrong? (disclaimer: Boston marathon bombing was obviously a very unique situation, but the forced entry of police into homes searching for a very dangerous suspect does raise questions of slippery slope, hillary comin’ for your daughter’s panties, etc.)

      • Martin M

        Never mind that all those officers with all that equipment and resources at their disposal couldn’t find the suspect. The massive sweep passed right over him.

        It was one citizen that noticed that his property had been tampered with.

        One observant citizen did what a thousand cops failed to do.

        • Big Daddy

          Which is what I have said all my life, it’s the citizen who is the first line of defense against crime, terror and invasion. We must work with the police and the government yet they do everything to alienate us and build a wall.

          • captain

            that wall just got 10 feet higher!

          • Big Daddy

            I hope Trump builds one 20 feet high.

          • Kivaari

            Visit Juan’s 21 Foot Ladder Company before the crossing.

          • Juanito Ibañez

            Just hope you don’t trip one of those “Bouncing Betty”s on your way to the wall with that “21-Foot Ladder”.

          • With some hot wires on top.

          • Len Jones

            or broken glass

          • Disarmament will probably happen this century

          • Big Daddy

            And I say to those in their 20s, 30s, even 40s, it’s your country and world now do the right thing.

          • rangerchuck

            Not enough of us, we’re failing, we be less of those to do the right thing soon.

          • Loog Moog

            it will be one HELL of a bloody mess…and unsuccessful, by the way

          • rangerchuck

            Which imply’s civil war will happen this century. Or perhaps worse, wholesale slaughter. ( think Branch Dividians )

        • Kivaari

          He didn’t have an AR with which to shoot his boat full of holes while apprehending the UNARMED suspect. The cops were shooting at each other and had a serious fire fight. GOD SAVE US!!!!

          • rangerchuck

            Must …..ban….. boats…..

        • Paul Faiella

          one unarmed citizen by the way. eagle eye!

        • Max Glazer

          US police ARE an incapable lot. Plenty of proof all over the net.

      • n0truscotsman

        It wasn’t a unique situation at all.

        the response to hunting down a lone, young man without intelligence or military training was disproportional and DESPICABLE. and may the chains rest lightly on those f–king morons that were chanting “boston boston! boston! ‘murica! freedumb!”

        Stupid idiots like that are the reason why laws like those mentioned in this article exist to begin with.

    • oldman

      You forget law enforcement (police and such) are the military arm of that level of government. The police and such are not there to protect the common citizenry they are there to protect the government they serve. So says the SCOTUS. So by that logic they are entitled to military grade weapons. Remember when it says to protect and serve it never says who they protect and serve.

      • rangerchuck

        We need to go back to local LE, people with family in the community.

    • Enemy combatants are allowed to be dealt with with battlefield tactics now, well, for years.

  • smug twingo

    Wait, so if removing “assault weapon” features doesn’t impact the lethality of a weapon, then why ban weapons based on those features? It’s almost as if these laws aren’t based on logic at all!

    • Blackhawk

      Quiet! You’ll do as the government tells you and not question it. Just remember that it’s for your own safety…

      • Anon

        FOR THE CHILDREN!

        • JumpIf NotZero

          I can out-fallacy that one…

          If It Saves Just One Life…</strong

          • Anon

            Touché.

          • Brett

            What about this one…

            But what if they fall into the wrong hands?

          • Dan Hermann

            Ban cars, if it just saves one life……

          • M40

            How about banning Korans, and forcing Muslims to register and get permits before they can practice their religion? The Democrats have already shown that they believe they can restrict rights in order to purchase safety. So now we can start imposing the same types of restrictions on Muslims as we do on gun owners, right?

          • Bob Waters

            especially those all black subarbans and escalades

        • Pretty sure that’s inscribed on the first brick on the road to Hell.

    • Eddie_Valiant

      That’s LIEberal logic!

    • Aaron

      Assault weapon features, such as a bayonet lug and collapsible stock. By god, we can’t have the good people of the United States folding their stock in and out all the time. It’s annoying. It might actually irritate people to death. Kind of like rapping on the table with your knuckles. And if you watch the news, you will find that there are mass bayonettings on nearly a daily basis. You have a better chance of being bayonetted on the street than getting your order right by a $15 an hour McDonald’s worker.

      • Barry Burton

        Aaron, you need to understand that these firearms are the types that ISIS and other nice peaceful Muslim groups use around the world to show their Peace and Love. Obama and Our government would not want you to slow down or prevent this Peace and Love in your area.

        • supergun

          Exactly. He even had a party for them at the whitehouse the other night.

        • Jakob Stagg

          They’ve shown their skills at head removal with a knife. We probably will not be allowed to have a knife because of that.

          • carlcasino

            That’s already restricted to under 3.5″ in length and forget about carrying the Buck pocket knife I have carried for over 50 years on an Airplane. I would welcome being Profiled if I could get some of my basic Liberties back.

          • Jakob Stagg

            I agree. Unfortunately, lost freedoms and liberties never return unless those who have taken them are destroyed. We are going to be living in interesting times.

          • carlcasino

            When questioned by my Uber Liberal Sister in Law about the need for so many guns and so much ammunition I merely informed her the lightest cop on our Night Watchmen (aka LEO’s) cadre is too heavy for me to carry and when the SHTF they will be the first to run for cover. The police station is 5 blocks from my house and on the occasions I required assistance the response time was 15 minutes?

          • Jakob Stagg

            I understand. Plus there is the problem that many places insist on disarming the law abiding and do nothing about the bad guys except record the names of the dead before the bodies are released.

          • Juanito Ibañez

            I’m afraid these anti-gun, -freedom and -liberty type politicians will continue to infringe on our rights – and not merely 2nd Amendment rights – until the ‘Jefferson Method’ of horticulture, combined with the ‘Henry Bowman Method’ of porcine nutrition, is liberally applied in the District of Criminals – and certain state capitols.

            “America is at that awkward stage; it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.”
            – Claire Wolfe, ‘101 Things to Do `Til the Revolution’

            Many, many people today are asking themselves: “Is is _really_ ‘too early…’?”

          • Jakob Stagg

            Amen!

          • GomeznSA

            HUSH! They are already doing that in (formerly)Great Britain. Please don’t give them any more bad ideas.

          • Jakob Stagg

            Scary isn’t it?

      • supergun

        That is the truth.

    • n0truscotsman

      Because laws like this are designed to pander to a voter base, when even the creators of those laws admit they are meaningless. Stepping stones and all that.

    • Chris Korkuch

      I believe the logic is that those “features” are being removed to change the status of a weapon that is considered illegal, assumed due to lethality, to be “legal,” assumed to be “acceptably lethal,” and that those features actually don’t impact lethality, and therefore their removal shouldn’t make the weapon legally salable.

      I think what you’re suggesting is the other way around from my interpretation above.

      • Gerald Adams

        So, if a bayonet lug and folding stock doesn’t contribute to lethality, why were they specified in the first place?

      • Chris

        The issue at heart here is that when the original AWB was passed, assault rifles were already severely regulated, so they defined “assault weapons” based on cosmetic appearances and explained that these cosmetics made a weapon more lethal. Now that the ban is in place, they are attempting to expand their definition of “assault weapon” because it was based purely on cosmetics to begin with.

      • Piotr Woźnica

        Cosmetics, eh? Just turn back to AR-10 and you’re set.
        What? It has wooden (veneer, pardon me) furniture and all that…
        Oh, wait, it’s still lethal.

        I just cannot comprehend that. It’s the same projectile coming out of the same barrel length. SO WHAT DOES IT MATTER IF IT’S BLACK AND LOOKS LIKE MILITARY-SPEC M4? It’s gonna kill just fine anyway…

        Sheesh, left-side logic is something I will never get…

    • AirborneSoldier

      They are not

    • will_ford

      AND never have been. IDIOTS at their best.

    • fnu lnu

      Another way, one they’d likely see, is that it doesn’t matter how neutered it is, it’s dangerous, and mere servants/taxpayers aren’t qualified to own them at all.

      • WRBuchanan

        This is EXACTLY what they think! You cannot be trusted to own a gun, but criminals who do will be released from prison.
        The Democratic Party is the party of the stupid people, and don’t forget that. You just watch them in action. They have the most Reprehensible candidate in recent History, but they are still Lockstep behind her.
        Maybe Bernie”s crowd will stand up and shout her down next week!
        Blacks continue to vote for Dems but the party does nothing to improve their lives. Hispanics continue to vote for them even though the open borders flood their job market with cheaper labor.
        Stupid People all have one thing in common,,,, They don’t pay attention.
        When you don’t pay attention to what is going on, then you will believe whatever lie you are told.
        The whole Idea is to put them into a city and keep them there. Been going on for nearly a hundred years! It’s called a Plantation!
        Go See; “Hillary’s America” in theaters starting today. It pretty much defines the whole process they follow.

    • Bob Waters

      if it were logical it would be by a conservative—not logical= liberal and Democrat.

  • Michael Lubrecht

    So the AG can do that by fiat? Is the law so poorly written that he can just unilaterally ban an entire class of firearms with a wave of the pen?

    Although the climate is not currently ripe for a SCOTUS decision, this looks ripe for a Federal court case.

    • BryanS

      As I have said before, Asking these judges for our rights back is like asking a rapist for lube.

    • raz-0

      It’s banning the sale. They will likely lean on the FFLs which the state has some regulatory control over. Laws won’t be involved, they will simply threaten to yank you license if you don’t comply.

      • jamezb

        Shes redefining the laws they already had..saying
        “WE MEANT TO SAY THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE”
        – note the language grandfathering the guns in circulation..
        (paraphrase)
        “Since our citizens THOUGHT the guns they bought were in compliance..”. …or something to that effect..

        Wait a minute… Isn’t their AG under congressional investigation? Subpoena’d last week to testify before congress for withholding information?
        Convenient timing, huh?

  • John

    I’m short-sighted AND i’m an englishman living in england, and even i can see that this bullshit is BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Please america, for god’s sake don’t become the UK.

    • BryanS

      Way too late.

    • Billy Jack

      It’s those fake muffins you keep shipping over here.

      • Kivaari

        They don’t ship ’em here, they bake ’em here.

      • Loog Moog

        delicious, though ! especially on egg mac muffins…

      • nicholsda

        And don’t forget the water they pass off as tea.

    • datimes

      We can’t help ourselves. You Brits and the rest of the EU have out inferior politicians drooling at the thought of being like you.

      • Bob Waters

        most Democrats and liberals drool all the time anyway.

    • John1943

      I have to say that, after living over here for twenty years, the political climate looks more and more like England all the time.

      From one British born John to another,

  • BryanS

    How did that gun banning and confiscation turn out in Early massachusetts?

    This one will be met with man-buns and crying about children and the NRA.

    • QuadGMoto

      The men of Lexington certainly weren’t happy about it.

      • AirborneSoldier

        Crispus Attucks. A black American, our first hero.

    • Billy Jack

      Sounds like when the King said the Irish couldn’t own a gun.

  • Phillip Shen

    This isn’t just a ban on compliant rifles, she wants to ban any copies that even run with the same operating system of existing banned rifles… which means all semi auto rifles including previously legal ones like the mini-14. Does she really want to gamble in court to see if that won’t get overturned because it’s way too broad a ban?

    Now, if it doesn’t include the mini-14, one ask why that is exempted and other compliant featureless rifles are not , especially as she acknowledges that none of the features make the rifle any more or less lethal. But it’s not like these laws made any sense in the first place.

    • snakebit

      That’s exactly why state-compliant ARs exist, because the ban was completely arbitrary and therefore had to be written as a combination of specifically banned makes/models and lists of specific features. The manufacturers responded rationally by creating variants without those features, and now the AG characterizes that as “gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a ‘copy’ or ‘duplicate’ weapon is”. No, Ms. Healy, the legislature defined that, and the manufacturers responded accordingly. It’s not the manufacturers ‘ fault that the MA legislature craftier a stupid and arbitrary law, and you do not as AG have the authority to enforce the law you believe they meant to write, rather than the one they actually did write.

  • cwp

    I understand why TFB strives to hew to the mantra of “firearms, not politics”, and I even sympathize with it. Unfortunately, however, I’m not sure that in the world of today — certainly not in the United States of today — it’s even possible to separate firearms from politics.

    • It is hard at times but we’ll stick with it—

      • jamezb

        Fight the good fight Phil.

    • Ryfyle

      Welcome to life. All things are Politics now.

      • Cymond

        When everything is politics, then the weird “politics” loses all meaning. It ceases to differentiate. Everything is equally political.
        When everything is politics, nothing is politics.

        • Ryfyle

          Lets be honest, this has been a great year for various media outlets to become politically sponsored and biased. Congrats, by merely owning a semi-auto rifle somebody going to think your a unhinged super killer. And those somebodies are incredibly loud and easy to pity.

  • You really can’t separate Guns from Politics.

    • Big Daddy

      Never could. The ones with the guns make the rules.

  • Piotr Woźnica

    I am reading all this and can only shake my head in disbelief.
    I am no American, but Massachussetts clearly goes where Europe went – into thinking that banning firearms will make people safer. See how it turned out in France or Belgium.

    Now, the thing is, how is the AG planning to make it happen? Ban all weapons with direct gas impingement? Gas piston? Rotating bolt (multi lug / AK type)? Where does the “copy of the feature” ends? If it’s hammer fired then it’s a no-go? Maybe if it has a trigger at all.

    I only hope that here in Poland our current Minister of Defence will remove some ludicrous bans on firearm ownership. At least it cannot get any worse.

    • Todd Wood

      Greetings from the great state of Alabama, what’s the people of Massachusetts are headed for a disaster that they will never be able to overcome. I wish you all the luck and your Homeland and all the people of Europe that think as you do

      • Piotr Woźnica

        Thank you, Mr. Wood.
        I should hope so, however, the hoplophobia is still running strong in this once-great nation of mine.
        I will make a point of visiting Alabama once I get to visit the US 😉

        • Todd Wood

          Find me on Facebook if you were to come to the state I’d be honored to greet you and welcome you

          • Piotr Woźnica

            So far that’s in the dream zone. However, maybe one day…

      • Piotr Woźnica

        I cannot seem to find you on Facebook, sir… If you wish to chat or discuss anything, then feel free to contact me at: piotr.a.woznica@gmail.com

        Cheers!

    • Eddie_Valiant

      We will be banning the lesbian Maura Healy in the near future.

      • Lowe0

        Who cares whether she’s a lesbian? When you make it about anything other than guns, you lose potential political allies.

        • Eddie_Valiant

          OK, then she’s a c*nt

          • Lowe0

            So, misogyny instead? When you’re at the range, do you miss all of your targets as badly as you just missed the point?

    • oldman

      It has not worked to all that well in the UK criminals still use firearms shotguns mostly but occasionally hand guns do turn up or knives or bats or clubs. They also have much higher rates of home invasion where ganges kick in doors and beat ( if lucky that is the worst they do) the residents while robbing them. The only thing it has done is make the criminals more brazen because they don’t have to worry about what is waiting on the other side of the door.

    • jamezb

      Firearms ownership is legal in France and Belgium – Just more regulated. Murder, meanwhile is 100% illegal. Problem is, criminals and terrorists don’t obey laws, be they against guns or murder.. And as the Assault Truck proved, you can have a mass killing without guns or bombs.

    • jamezb

      I hope your Minister of Defense will see fit to remove your firearm bans, my friend. Poland made some fine guns in the past and makes fine ones today. I hope a few great ones are destined to be yours someday soon.

      • Piotr Woźnica

        Like you wouldn’t believe. That bullpup MSBS looks sick!

    • AirborneSoldier

      Poland seems like a pretty cool country these days.

      • Piotr Woźnica

        Not when it comes to firearm ownership. At least we don’t get terrorists blowing up or running over pedestrians. Personally, I think it’s just a matter of time, so I’d rather be prepared for that.

    • Gerald Adams

      I think this is the first time I have seen a poster from Poland. I’m a first generation American, my father was born in a small town near Warsaw. He changed the family name from Czajkowski to Adams when I was four years old. Speaking of firearms, what can you own in Poland?

      • Piotr Woźnica

        Nice to meet you. I hope the US been good to you.

        When it comes to firearm ownership in Poland, it’s pretty restrictive – around 200 thousand people own the licence – which is around half percent of the total population number. This includes policemen, hunters, etc. You can already see the scale of the problem. Poland is a disarmed society.

        As for the firearms: the easier ones to get are hunting rifles and shotguns (over under or 0x0) and sporting rifles (as in .22 LR plinking and competition rifles and pistols – not sporting rifles the US citizens are used to). You have to be a hunter or a registered member of a competition shooting club. To own a pistol for personal protection you have to make a good argument that you, or your close ones, are in constant danger or some such. Rubbish if you ask me – since I am no businessman, policeman or bank guard it excludes me from owning a 9mm pistol without outright lying in the paperwork. Not a good idea in and of itself. Assault rifles and the like are pretty much unavailable outside of some shooting clubs/ranges and LOK (Liga Obrony Kraju – Country Defence League).

        There is plenty of red tape when it comes to protecting oneself by any means, not to mention a firearm. To give you an example of how bad things are: a girl was almost raped, but managed to wound the attacker with a knife. He got off with suspended sentence. She got 2 years. So unless the law changes so that we may protect ourselves or our close ones, people are not going to flock for guns, even if the restrictions on ownership were lifted. Some, like me, would buy a rifle or two – for plinking and training – but having to face a prison sentence for self-defence means I would probably not carry a pistol anyway, but keep a pump-action shotgun at home, should it come to the worst.

        The final problem is the prices – since there is little demand, the prices are high. There are also some restrictions on importing guns and ammo.

        Hope this helps.

    • nicholsda

      AR-15s also include simple blowback bolt operated firearms so that all modern firearms would be included

      • Piotr Woźnica

        My point exactly.

  • datimes

    Massachusetts and the NRA will be bumping heads in court soon.

    • Captain Obvious

      NRA is a lap dog.

      • datimes

        What was I thinking? I meant the ACLU.

  • Blackhawk

    The “interchangeable components test” seems to be extremely poorly worded. Unless they define a number of components, or give a list of which parts would qualify, this is asking for abuse. The sights on my rifle can be used on a lot of other guns, and I’m sure some of the pins and springs would fit. Not to mention the huge number of firearms that can use AR mags (including some bolt actions).

    • TVOrZ6dw

      Just what I was thinking- My Remington 870 shotgun that can be fitted with an AR style collapsing stock is now banned? Or is it just banned if I have it fitted with an AR style stock?

      • Gerald Adams

        I’ve got a Mossberg 500 pump 12 ga with a bayonet lug. Looks awesome with a M-16 bayonet attached.

    • hikerguy

      Most gun laws are so poorly written usually by politicians who do not know much about guns. That’s why gun owners almost always find away to get around them. It will be interesting to see how they enforce this…

      • snakebit

        Most laws are poorly written, regardless of the subject. It’s just that legislators’ ignorance is particularly glaring to those with even a modicum of knowledge about firearms.

      • Paul B.

        Yeah, I remember reading that one of the parts of the NY “SAFE” act struck down by a judge prohibited semiauto rifles with a muzzle “break.” The judge ruled (correctly) that since no one could say what a muzzle “break” is, that part was unconstitutionally vague. Another part had some gobbledygook about magazines possessed before a certain date–it was so incoherent that the judge struck it down too.

    • Guy

      Wouldn’t that in effect ban all railed accessories? All guns with a rail, because they can accept a multitude of universal doodads? This is total bull.

      • Blackhawk

        Exactly. At this point, they can use this as justification to ban anything they want.

        “Oh, that gun has a barrel? So do cannons! Ban them all!”

    • Cory C

      It’s kind of funny, if you think about it. The MA attorney general is basically saying that they passed a law that could be interpreted in such a way as to allow for a work-around or loophole, so his solution is to propose a new standard that is equally vague. Nice work, brainiac.

    • oldman

      A few years back Ca. passed an assault weapons ban that was so vaguely worded a 32 compilation pistol was classified as an assault weapon.

    • jamezb

      assault sniper bolt actions!!!

  • Big Daddy

    I know I won’t live to see it but this country is headed into a civil war. Those that want to be free will move to a free state like here in Texas. Those that don’t mind living in a Lenin utopia will stay in those states and be concerned with everybody’s feelings as they get raped, bludgeoned and robbed. It’s a sad day in the USA, now I know how people felt in 1850’s as we headed toward “The Civil War”. Hillary will bring us that much closer……as did Lincoln, the difference is the North was right at that time, now the South is right. The saying “The South will rise again” I always took as a joke as with so many conspiracy theories, not anymore.

    • john huscio

      At the moment, there are a great many states freer than Texas.

      • Big Daddy

        Yes true but there are 20 million people here and a lot of business interest, a lot of MONEY. So with that there is power.

      • d.dolcater

        Aside from Alaska, please name one.

        • Anon

          Are you kidding me? Wyoming, Vermont, West Virginia, Idaho, Maine, those states all have lews restrictive gun laws than Texas, and the list goes on.

        • john huscio

          I’ll name several:

          Wyoming
          Arizona
          Florida
          Maine
          Arkansas
          Indiana
          Idaho
          Tennessee
          The dakotas

          • LG

            Add Louisiana to the list.

          • d.dolcater

            If you’re only talking about Constitutional Carry, I’ll havce to agree with you, but it takes a lot more than that to make you free.

          • bucherm

            Yeah, how about no abortion restrictions or drug war?

            Oh wait, Texas does both of those.

          • n0truscotsman

            Thats why I’ve come to the conclusion that there are no free states anymore. If you want your gun rights, you have to deal with drug criminalization and government meddling in women’s reproductive choices. Or? if you want the later? no gun rights.

            Stupid, stupid country.

          • Fox Hunter

            Abortion is murder, it is no more a reproductive choice for any woman than committing rape is a reproductive choice for anyone , man or woman. There is a reason abortion and getting high on mind altering drugs is not in the Bill of Rights. No amount of verbal gymnastics from scotus will change that. Freedom means real freedoms, God given freedoms and God given rights, if it is not from God, it is not a real freedom or right, just another liberal invented govt given privilege.

          • n0truscotsman

            First sentence combines a legally incorrect piece of information (abortion = murder) followed by the mother of all false equivalence (abortion [consenual act])=rape ([non-consenual act]).

            “There is a reason…”

            In case you didn’t catch on, rights aren’t *limited* by what is contained in the BOR, meaning, its not an inclusive, exhaustive list of the *only* enumerated, protected rights.

            Arguably, the choice to consume mind altering drugs is a personal one, with an individual choosing what to do with his/her consciousness at his/her own volition, not by the moral decisions of others, or state or federal governments for that matter. Especially at gunpoint or at consequence of being tossed into a corporate prison where you will be indirectly punished disproportionately (arguably in violation of 8th amendment protections regarding ‘prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishments’).

            Considering the *other* rights that have been ruthlessly torn to pieces because of this peculiar “moral obligation” (with an undeniably racist backstory), it is obvious what has ultimately proven more destructive of a means. And its not individuals making informed decisions about drug use…

            “No amount of verbal gymnastics from scotus will change that.”

            A typical response from another person cherry picking SCOTUS ‘legitimacy’ based on his/her own personal opinions. Like I’ve never heard this one before…*cough* DC V Heller.

            “Freedom means real freedoms”

            Who decides what constitutes ‘real freedoms’? especially to those like myself who *elect not to believe in a god*? and the founders *certainly* disagreed that rights some view as ‘god given’ are somehow more legitimate than those that aren’t perceived as ‘god given’. No slippery slope there, no siree.

            “just another liberal invented…”

            The current battle for our own individual rights has nothing to do with the petty ‘left vs right’ red herring, but rather, authoritarian vs anti-authoritarian.

          • AirborneSoldier

            You keep your meth heads. I would support capital punishment at the statelevel for drug producers and sellers. They enslave people, ruin lives, and cause death

          • n0truscotsman

            Compare the body count to drug prohibition.

            It jails an entire class of people based on socio-economic status, leads to unacceptable abuses of our sacred right from unreasonable search and seizure, and leads to things like CIA drug sales in our own country, the propping up of insane characters like pablo escobar and the mexican cartels, and islamic terrorism.

            There is literally no merit to any argument in favor of prohibition.

          • M40

            Kinda disturbing that you think abortion is a “consensual act”. The mother might consent to it, but the child sure as hell doesn’t. The very idea of an act being somehow moral or just via a one-sided consent is laughable. If a criminal shows up at your door and shoots you in the face… can he claim that it was a “consensual act”?

          • n0truscotsman

            Im not interested into getting into the ages old debate over *when* a collection of cells becomes a ‘child’.

            The question ultimately boils down to this: do you believe that women have self-ownership? yes or no?

          • M40

            Yes… and the question then becomes, “does she have ownership over the child”. I don’t care whether you’re interested in the actual crux of the debate, or whether you want to sidetrack the issue. I’m not religious in any way, but I do think there needs to be some cutoff… maybe not the moment of conception (as the religious might argue)… definitely not at birth (as some activists seem to think).
            And the REAL argument… where does the federal government get off thinking this is within their purview to decide? The tenth amendment says it’s an individual state’s decision. ALL ridiculous arguments (from either side) at the fed level should be held moot and deemed as unconstitutional overreach.

          • n0truscotsman

            “where does the federal government get off thinking this is within their purview to decide?”

            Roe v. Wade, particularly, the part regarding the right to privacy via 14th amendment

            Where do moral majorities and governments get off thinking a woman’s reproductive/pregnancy choices are *any of their #$*!&ing business*?

            This is government’s purpose IMO: to protect individual rights.

            I dont agree with 10th amendment clinging either, as states have repeatedly demonstrated they are too corrupt, incompetent, or vindictive to protect individual rights (this doesn’t vidicate the fed gov’s idiocy either, but thats the luxurious seat I sit in, i get to crap on all sides).

          • M40

            Regional and local beliefs and attitudes are best served by regional and local government. The founders realized this and codified it in our constitution. They gave the federal level ONLY those responsibilities which state and local governments could not reasonably handle on their own (ie: coin/maintain a currency, defend the nation and borders, negotiate with foreign powers, build/maintain interstate infrastructure, etc).

            We are in a mess today precisely because the federal government has FAILED in their mandated duties… and have instead busied themselves with trivial matters that belong with individual states. They KNOW they’ve failed in their assigned tasks, and that is exactly why they DISTRACT you with endless politicized debate over social matters, which they have NO business meddling in.

            You’re caught up in a game that BOTH sides of the aisle are playing. It’s a game where they distract you while picking your pockets. A game where all of your money is eventually siphoned away, and the fruits of your life’s labor now belongs to the fed and not your children. You’ve become a slave, willing to give up more and more of your freedoms, and handing ever more power and wealth to an expanding ruling class. This game will not end well.

          • n0truscotsman

            Your sentiment towards the fed gov is something Im in total agreement with.

            and what does protecting individual rights have to do with ‘being a willing slave’ again?

          • M40

            Human rights are the hallmarks of any free society. Without them, you are a slave to government.

          • AirborneSoldier

            So dont live there

          • Cory C

            Exactly. Enjoy your state income taxes, mandatory workers’ compensation programs for businesses, unreasonable damages caps that infringe upon on your 7th Ammendment rights, and all the rest. Freer than Texas indeed.

          • AirborneSoldier

            Im happy with Missouri.

    • Porty1119

      Unless you’re pushing 100, you’ll live to see it.

      • Big Daddy

        Well, I’m close to 60 and have medical issues so I hope I don’t see it. It makes me very sad to know what so many served and died for is being destroyed by people who have no idea what they are doing. I’m a veteran and live near Ft. Hood. It’s like the devil is taking over and people think the devil is actually their savior, an angel in white flowing robes. That’s the only way I can describe it, I’m not religious at all.

        • Chris Mccanlas-Hansen

          Get a gun it coming very soon

          • Big Daddy

            Got plenty, enough to arm an infantry squad.

          • Anon

            I thought you lost them in a boating accident. 😉

          • Big Daddy

            If I lived up North I would have. Here everybody has an arsenal.

          • Anon

            What state/area do you live in?

          • Big Daddy

            Texas, I moved here from NYC. One reason was the politics, the cost of living was ridiculous and I felt unable to protect myself there. I got tired of confrontations that don’t happen in Texas because people are armed. I refuse to be a victim of thugs or the government.

          • Anon

            Ah, thanks, me personally, I live in NC.

          • Anon

            He said he was a veteran, it’s not too much of a stretch to assume that he already has guns, and I think you need to work on your English.

      • tyrannyofevilmen

        I agree. As they say on the local news: HAPPENING NOW…

    • LG

      No the previous conflict was The War of Northern Aggression. It was NOT a civil war. A civil war is one in which one group martially enforces it’s will on an entire country. The Confederate States of America only wanted to go their own separate way, and did not want to force the northern yankees to follow them. So who were the REAL tyrants. Lincoln forced the war and started hostilities by sending reinforcements to Ft. Sumter in Confederate territory. Also remember that there has never been a treaty of peace between the Confederate States of America and the yankee government. Lee could surrender The Army of Northern Virginia and NOTHING else.

      • ostiariusalpha

        “…So who were the REAL tyrants…”
        The South, you know, the guys with the slaves. Duh.

        • LG

          Slavery was perfectly legal under the constitution until the 14 amendment. The current constitution would NOT have been signed by the Southern States without the provision for slavery. You may not have agreed with it, but it was legal. The illegality was the method used to change it.

          • Cory C

            So just because it’s remitted under the law, that doesn’t make it tyrannical? That’s an interesting position for someone to take in the comments section of an article like this one.

          • LG

            I am not talking about morals. i am talking about usurped power contrary to the original ideals of the original union of states. Just as one could now say that if one disliked firearms no one is going to make one buy or possess one. More intelligent and MORAL people will say that you are wrong and say that the GOOD deserves all guns in civilian hands to be illegal. It is not about morality it is about the changing of the rules of the game.

          • bucherm

            ” i am talking about usurped power contrary to the original ideals of the original union of states”

            Hamilton, Madison, and Washington, all important people in the framing of the Constitution, felt that uprisings in republics were morally wrong.

            I mean, Washington literally lead an army out to crush the proles as President, and Madison took a big ole dump on the nullifiers when people asked if what they were trying was Constitutional.

          • Cory C

            Cool, but think about the irony in your post. This is a thread about a politician who believes that what they’re doing is okay because it’s supposedly legal. You have a problem with that and yet you’re essentially using the same reasoning to justify slavery. What I and others are saying is that legali tyranny is still tyranny, which is exactly what you’re saying about the MA AG (and, of course, you also disagree with them that their law is legal in the first place… That’s not lost on me).

          • Big Daddy

            Oh you’re one of those types. OK. Actually the reality of is that legal or not the rest of the world. the countries that were leaders in trade at that time did not have slavery and found it a distasteful practice, even if they did it and profited from it themselves. We all know how that works, it’s called hypocrisy. If the US wanted to be a bigtime player in the international trade scene it had to eliminate slavery. Otherwise getting trade agreements would have been difficult and it would be used as leverage against the USA. It was a business decision not a moral one by the North. We had unlimited resources and needed to have free trade unimpeded to be on their level in terms of bargaining. Of course to the victor belongs the spoils and the rich Northern businessmen were drooling at the prospect of the southern land being theirs or controlling it in some way. The south was thinking only about their lifestyle/way of life, the north about the big international picture on trade agreements.

          • LG

            Big Daddy, the logic you present is the very same that will remove your 2nd amendment rights. Your rights must be surrendered because other trading nations abhor your laws and rights. I stand by the fact that there would be no signed US Constitution including Southern States without the dreaded provisions of the Bill of Rights, which was taken from the then current Virginia State Constitution, slavery, the electoral college, etc. Right or wrong. Moral or immoral. If you read the Constitution of The Confederate States of America, it very closely parallels the original Articles of Confederation. It is a system that I personally would feel better under than the current distortion of words called The Constitution.

          • Big Daddy

            Read one of my other comments here. The fact is the 2A is the backbone of the Constitution, it’s you can’t have one without the other. There’s a reason it’s #2 after free speech, they go hand in hand. Yet I see each one of the most important amendments chipped away, due process one of the most important being destroyed with things like no knock search warrants and then charging the person with murder after he uses the castle doctrine against an illegal search.

            It’s the USA that insures all those other countries that have restrictive gun laws their freedom. The arsenal of democracy starts with the armed civilian of the USA. Not it’s army, all the guys and girls in the armed forces were at one time civilians, all the reservists, National Guard are civilians most of the time.

            To remove 2A rights starts the collapse of the arsenal of democracy. Therefore the collapse of the free world. The first line of defense against terrorists within the USA and that come here are the armed civilian. he is the first line against anarchy and has always been.

            Right now we are in the drivers seat of free trade, we are engine that moves the vehicle. We were not in 1860. We were a small player in the big game in 1860 with a lot of resources yet to be turned into product.

            The USA is the greatest and most free civilization in history. The constitution is by far the most advanced political document and the USA most advanced and free form of government ever. To destroy that is a travesty against mankind. With all it’s flaws the USA is the shinning light of humanity as were the Greeks and Romans of their time, far surpassing both in every way both good and in some cases bad.

          • LG

            I concur. But then you must admit that the north were the aggressors in the War Between the States, they wanted to unilaterally change the rules. So why should the 2nd amendment etc be immune? What I am saying is that for all it’s faults, once one starts unilaterally dictating changes to the foundation of the country, for better or worse, entropy rules.

          • AirborneSoldier

            Quit arguing the Civil War. Argue the next one now, so that maybe we win it wi no deaths of our children or grandchildren

          • Fox Hunter

            Greeks and Romans? Homosexuality and pederasty was rampant in Ancient Greece, women were second class citizens, Ancient Greece is more like a muslim country in that way. Rome was a dictatorship, and they had slavery, homosexuality was also rampant like in Ancient Greece. America was great because of Christianity. Alexis De Tocqueville saw this when he visited America. But now as America is abandoning Christianity and embracing liberalism and all its ills including sexual anarchy and gun control, things are just getting worse and worse.

        • Big Daddy

          Yup you can argue about this or that all ya want but the fact was that the South wanted slavery. The idea of enslaving a fellow human being is repugnant and is actually what the democrats want to do, it’s called Communism/Socialism.

        • d.dolcater

          The black slaves felt that they needed the government’s help to be MEN, much like now, no?

          • ostiariusalpha

            Considering that the government that they lived under was the C.S.A., I think they were more likely needing each and every one of its members to simply hang from a gallow.

          • d.dolcater

            They lived under the CSA 1861 to 1865. Lincoln “freed” them, and they weren’t even in his country. They’re just as much slaves now as they ever were, but their “massa” is in D.C. Read history much?

          • AirborneSoldier

            They didnt kill their slaves as they teach in school. Many were cose to their owners, all cost a small fortune. Lots of lies about slavery.

          • bucherm

            So how high are you right now, out of curiosity?

            And black slaves frequently either killed overseers, fled to free states, or lead uprisings. Military schools like VMI and the Citadel were created so that Southern Militias could have trained officers to help put down slave rebellions.

            Would YOU not seek out help if every time you tried a rebellion it got crushed? Or are you too much of a man to accept it? Because you sound like one of those guys who confuse the terms “hardass” and “dumbass”.

        • M40

          Is this where we are supposed to pretend that the civil war was about slavery?

    • CommonSense033

      Texas, a free state?

      You don’t even have real open carry, you need a CCW to do that, and that has a blatantly illegal training requirement. I won’t travel to Texas because they don’t honor my CCW, I don’t go to police states like yours.

      You need a license to order lab glassware. SERIOUSLY.

      You have more freaking mosques than a field of tall grass has ticks, and most of them are Saudi-built wahhabist “convert or die” types.

      Texas is all hat, no cattle.

    • n0truscotsman

      There will be no civil wars unless something extraordinary happens. Thats just patriot-leaning literature pandering.

      what will most likely happen is there will be another 1-200 million people in another 50 years, the country will be more urbanized, and individual liberties will become a distant memory after being chopped on the block to alleviate greater societal problems such as failing safety net systems, failing education, food insecurity, and spiraling unemployment due to widspread neo-liberalist economic policies and automation.

      Your right to unreasonable search and seziure will be utterly gutted, made irrelevant by exoponentially growing surveillance and domestic intelligence gathering programs, the right to keep and bear arms will be regulated into irrelevance, and cruel and unusual punishment? nah, because the police black sites didn’t stay confined to chicago.

      Imagine Elysium or Soylent Green. Thats our future.

      Be relieved that before it lasts at that level for too long, it will implode as peak oil and climate change deliver the killing blow. Thank goodness in a way. Pray the past 1,000 years of knowledge is safeguarded though.

  • Interesting. By the “clone” definition is seems to leave open the doors for “featureless” rifles such as the SCAR/F2000/Tavor etc that have no interchangeable parts with the rifles that would have been banned by name in the 1994 AWB.

  • scott 1911man

    Typical Libtard, logic ban rifles yea thats gonna stop the violence.. F-king IDIOTS.. I cannot wait to move out of this freaking liberal state. I hope GOAL, com2a NRA they better be all over this.

    • Guy

      Please don’t go getting mad at ‘liberals’. Sure, they’re guilty, just as much as Reagan and Bush who instituted ‘assault weapons’ bans. Politicians do what politicians do.

      • n0truscotsman

        st ronnie: the god father of the modern day movement to ban assault weapons.

        • Bland Samurai

          Actually the NRA. Reagan wanted to veto FOPA but the NRA persuaded him to sign it. Neal Knox left the NRA as a result and started his own group.

      • AirborneSoldier

        Liberals are communists now. Local ones dont understNd that yet

  • Presidential Failure

    Look at the high cheekbones on the Massachusetts emblem, I wouldn’t be surprised if Elizabeth Warren’s peepaw served as the model.

  • WCC

    “Our job is to keep people safe.” Not to keep people free, apparently. You can have the promise of the former, or the reality of the latter, but not both. I’m sure it seems like a hard decision if you’re not paying attention to the details.

    • Bob

      Time for the citizens of Mass to Pass some Gas from their Ass into the face of that commi Lass!

      Those that surrender freedom for security deserve neither.

  • Anon

    Oh crap, I just had a tragic boating accident, I think that my entire collection was on that boat.

    DAMMIT.

  • Brocus

    Well, states’ rights and all that.

  • thedonn007

    Get some 80% lowers and roll your own?

  • Paul Hurst

    Said ruling would cover just about every magazine fed semi-auto ever made.

    • snakebit

      Exactly as intended.

  • MarcoPolo

    Is it time to start voting from the rooftops yet?

    • AirborneSoldier

      No.

  • 1776@ourdoor

    Strategic disarmament, so when the invasions come, the enemy will know where to land

    • Colin S

      Who is going to invade you… other than the aliens?

      • Bob

        He’s just having a day dream about somebody attacking California, let him fantasize…

        • Guy

          My guess is he’s an overweight prepper who can’t climb a flight of stairs but stockpiled all the 22LR in existence.

          • Bob

            No way. I have thousands of .22LR rounds. He didn’t get it all. ;D

          • AirborneSoldier

            You didnt bro?

  • Mike_88

    Because. “Steering clear of politics” is definitely helping to protect our civil rights….cucks.

  • Bob

    As I recall, Massachusetts was the state that tied to pass a bill that would require all owners of assault weapons turn in said assault weapons or be branded felons. It fell through obviously, but it was an interesting counterpoint to the anti gun people saying “No one is going to take your guns, we just want to enact some common sense laws.”

  • Dan

    Nice how AG can just interpret the law anyway she wants. It’s amazing that the criminals get set free on “loophole” interpretation of the law but law abiding citizens cannot purchase guns from what she calls a loophole. Thought you had to change the law, I guess not in MA. I unfortunately live in this state.

    • Cory C

      Please see most post above. It’s not exactly like that, though I agree with you in spirit.

  • Repoman3737

    I unfortunately live in the people republic of Massholeachussetts and luckily have an AR already. I went looking for lowers today once I heard about this and locally sold out. I see some 80%ers in my future.

    Where I am confused is on mass website under gun laws it defines an assault weapon as a semi auto with atleast 2 of the common features we’ve all come to know. I don’t understand how she can just pull thus new definition out of a$$ with no passing of new laws or votes or anything. If an assault weapon has been defined legally by the use to be great state of Massachusetts for decades how can she just change it with no warning,vote,or over site? I call shenanigans on this one

    • Captain Obvious

      Shut up slave!
      I live in Commiechussetts too. Time to move to Vermont.

      • Big Daddy

        Pack up and move to Texas or another free state.

        • AirborneSoldier

          Yes, come south

      • Repoman3737

        Vermont sounds good except for Bernie and his supporters who knows what the future holds for that state. I like the idea of new Hampshire or if it wasn’t so damn hot I’d go back to florida.

        • UD

          New Hampshire is actually the better option, you pay way less in taxes.

          • Repoman3737

            Or are you trying to keep Vermont to yourself by suggesting new hampshire to the flatlanders?

          • UD

            Actually, I hope to move back to NH, for the taxes alone. Still a free state, property taxes are higher, but you make up for it in no state taxes, sales tax, or income tax. And it can be just over the river from 91. We’ll see, though I am proud of Vermont besides Bernie.

      • UD

        Your friendly neighbors to the north, just don’t take offense when we refer to you as flatlanders, we’re just having fun with you. 😉

      • ARCNA442

        Vermont needs some more conservatives to balance out all the out of state liberals that are taking over. Plus, we have virtually no gun laws.

  • disqus_DskKuQ8AOL

    So thugs and killers can have then put law abiding people cant. Our government wants us to sit like sheep waiting to be slaughtered

    • Big Daddy

      Don’t worry the’ll protect us as long as we pay them. It’s all a scam. How did the mob work? They protect you just pay them.

  • Repoman3737

    Anyone think she will ban those assault trucks with the high capacity fuel tanks and cargo hauling abilities? I mean she has too because so far the highest single gunman casualties at one time is 49. The guy with a truck got 84 so which is more deadly?

    • raz-0

      Gasoline and a match is at 87.

    • Cory C

      Don’t dorget those fully automatic transmissions.

  • Gregory

    Time for Smith & Wesson to move out of Massachusetts and take its employees elsewhere to pay income tax.

    • Ambassador Vader

      They moved to Brazil years ago lol

      • snakebit

        Nope. S&W’s HQ and significant manufacturing operations remain in Springfield and they actually moved T/C production from NH to MA in 2010. As far as I can determine S&W doesn’t have any operations in Brazil.

        • Ambassador Vader

          It was facetious. Implying Taurus stole so much from them they, they moved to Brazil.

          • snakebit

            Ah, I didn’t read your original comment that way.

          • Big Daddy

            I got it immediately.

          • Ambassador Vader

            All good, It was my fault I could find the sarcasm button.

  • Ambassador Vader

    I love how we are now in the days where a single man or department can single handedly decide to rewrite laws on the fly. Looking at you 41F! If this isn’t law without representation I seriously don’t know what is.

  • Ambassador Vader

    “if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon”- Translation, everything illegal now.

  • Bjørn Vermo

    Ban on ALL assault weapons? Like assault pressure cookers, assault trucks and assault axes? We have seen badguys using those to assault people recently, so it is obviously important to ban them.

  • Arthur

    Get the guns out of honest hands so the criminals can take over. Brilliant. My gun will never be taken without a battle.

  • Repoman3737

    If you go by if the guns operating system is the same as a banned weapon than its a copy I guess piston opera ted AR’s are OK because all the banned ones were gas impingement.

  • phauxtoe

    PROOF!
    The “Slippery Slope” is Real!

  • nadnerbus

    So, politics are pretty much a given in this thread, so I hope I’ll be forgiven for asking this:

    Clearly what these states want is a ban on semi auto, centerfire detachable magazine long guns. Yet the legislation they keep writing goes after cosmetics, leading to loophole after loophole. California’s new bullet button ban already has a new loophole device to avoid registration, for instance.

    Do these states not feel they can get away with banning firearms as broadly as center fire, semi auto, detachable magazine long guns, and institute these piecemeal laws in its place, or are they really so ill informed on guns that they think these current laws will give them what they want?

    And I dont see how even Mass courts could fail to see that the AG here just basically enacted new legislation without any being handed down to him from actual elected reps. Even if they agree with his goals, how can they let a precedent like this stand? What’s to stop a future AG from just changing accepted law on a whim in the future in regards to something they care about?

    • snakebit

      Because MA is a one-party Democrat state. Since this action is consistent with their agenda the Democrat legislature will not object to the usurpation of their authority. It will be interesting to see what Republican governor Charlie Baker has to say about it. BTW, the AG is a woman.

    • Paul B.

      Agree 100%–what they really want to do is ban all semi auto rifles with detachable mags. At least some are honest enough to say so; the rest want to do it one bite at a time.

      • AirborneSoldier

        What they really want is control. They will take it incrementally if you let them

  • Big Daddy

    Lets face it, all they want to do is disarm the citizens. Even Obozo said oh no, but oh yes that’s what they want to do. For whatever reasons, I’ve seen a lot of speculation about the why, it doesn’t matter. The fact is our founding fathers knew as long as the population is armed with up to date firearms the government could not bypass the Constitution, even though they have used it as toilet paper it’s still standing tall. We as Americans have a universal right to defend our liberty, property and lives, some say god given, inalienable, I say universal. In fact we as citizens, the people are the militia and the government itself we have the responsibility, your duty as citizens is to be prepared to defend the Constitution against any attackers, foreign and domestic. Remove our firearms and you remove any ability other than the court system to defend ourselves, does anybody trust the courts of the USA? The Government itself? The Corporations that lobby it and pay these people off? We all know it is corrupt and our last line of defense is our rights to use firearms for defense. Anybody who does not understand that deserves to be enslaved, they already are slaves and not free people. Freedom has a responsibility, freedom is not free, just ask all the families who have lost loved ones fighting for freedom.

    • Big Daddy

      AND I will add the reason places like Australia, England, Europe, Japan can have strict firearms laws and still have some freedom is because the USA protects them. Yes the good old USA and all the people with guns here insures their freedom. Without us y’all’d be speaking Russian and down in south Asia Chinese.

      • snakebit

        Also the reason they can afford (to the extent that they actually can) their generous social welfare programs. When someone else is paying for your security it frees up a lot of money for other uses.

        • Big Daddy

          Exactly, the working class of the USA is the backbone of the country and by that the backbone of the rest of the world. Destroy it and the dominoes will fall. Who were the ones that won WWII? It wasn’t only the fighting men, it was all those people in all those factories pumping out arms for the troops. Same goes for the people of Russia. The worker is the fuel that drives the economic engine and NOT the way the socialist think.

        • n0truscotsman

          This is recognized by pretty much everybody, and I’m glad you said it.

          The contribution the United States makes to other countries’ low health care costs, minimal military defense expenses, and security of trade routes is something critics often forget about, or, rather, choose to forget about.

          This is why the “we need to be like europe!” comments are usually followed by a /double facepalm/ because its simply infeasible. Unless we find a benevolent power to cover for us…

        • AirborneSoldier

          Yes

  • Isotope

    So if it’s possible to install a flash suppressor, pistol grip and folding stock on a particular model of gun, that model becomes illegal to sell in Massachusetts. Essentially this directive bans all guns.

    • Pedenzo

      ^ Exactly this…..”….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.”

      So…..any firearm that I put a red dot sight on will now become illegal…..sounds like a liberal’s wet dream………

  • Joseph Goins

    She referred to this as a loophole when it was clearly written into law by the legislators? $100 says this receives a Federal injunction tomorrow as the Attorney General is arbitrarily telling manufacturer and dealers, under penalty of law, that they cannot do something when they have the legal right to do so.

    • ARCNA442

      You seriously think Obama’s Department of Justice is going to voluntarily fight an anti-gun bill, no matter how unconstitutional it is?

      • Joseph Goins

        Are you stupid enough to assume that the DOJ is the only entity that can sue someone? Also, this isn’t a “bill” but an “opinion.”

  • john huscio

    The Indian on their coat of arms is pissed because in taxachusetts he can’t arm himself with anything better than a damn bow.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      You east-coasters stay away from the West. Fly over country – nothing to see. 🙂

  • gunsandrockets

    The courts will play their games, so who knows what might result.

    However, the Massachusetts ban was not the first. Nor was the Fed ban. In fact the Massachusetts legislation sounds like it broadly copied the first State law to ban so-called “assault weapons”, which was California in 1989.

    And let me tell you, that original California law was a mess. The legislature ended up passing modified versions of the ban over the next few years in an attempt to paper over all the goofs and blatant over-reach in the original legislation. Even so, California lost an important court case anyway which is why something like the exemption of the “bullet button” guns even exists today.

    http://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/23/472.html

  • Hank

    It’s for global warming

  • CommonSense033

    Enjoy the lawsuits you’re about to be smashed with for being a capricious tw@t who thinks she can make law at will, b_tch.

    • AirborneSoldier

      Then they will throw another hand grenade out, and another, then another. Start a recall petition if state law allows it, and get off yer azz and write checks to whoever is leading the charge. Go to the capital. Protest. Go talk to your reps. Do more than bi#3Tch

  • Jamie

    Massachusetts led the pack to gain our freedoms in the colonial years and now leads the pack in limiting freedoms. Everything is illegal in Massachusetts. ….get me the hell out of here.

    • Big Daddy

      Do like I did, pack up and move to Texas.

    • UD

      Hell, as long as you don’t bring the liberal ideas with you, you’re welcome in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine! Don’t try New York though, its too far gone. 🙁

  • Michael

    I wonder if the gun companies there, like Smith and Wesson or Kahr will move to a more gun friendly state or not? Or, will they stop selling to police departments in non-gun friendly states. I would beg to say no they are or would not, seeing it all about profit, and not standing up for the Second Amendment with them.

    • Rock or Something

      That’s the only reason why I don’t purchase Smith and Wesson or Kahr fireamrs, although Kahr has recently set up a new manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania. Kahr’s headquarters is still in Mass, incidentally in the same town I was born in.

  • lbeacham

    Move.

  • Guns from scrap

    They don’t recognize the constitution, let us not recognize them as a state, kick them out.

    • UD

      Actually, if you try to do any legal business with them, they will say they are not a state, but rather the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

  • kyphe

    So are we going to get a whole state wide industry based on the VZ-58 like in Canada or is that on the ban list too?

  • Billy Jack

    My defensive rifle is no threat to any law abiding human. A hot dog is more likely to take a life.

  • MAF

    Look at the bright side. Everyone who owns one is grandfathered in–and therefore should feel free to add back the banned features!

  • pelermon

    Weapons do not assault people.
    Democrats do.

  • 22winmag

    I witnessed AR lowers selling like hotcakes at gun shops in nearby NH today. Apparently the law takes effect at midnight.

  • Hugh Janus

    Further proof that liberalism is a mental illness.

  • Repoman3737

    Another problem is any AR owners in mass can never sell them. I just read the exact statement or whatever you want to call it on massachusetts website not the press release in the globe. It has a questions section and one of the questions is how do I get rid of my gun? Answer, look for gun turn in or buy back programs in your area or the local police or state police will accept any firearms you would like to turn in. So short answer I can never recoup the couple thousand dollars my AR is worth. Catch 22 it’s probably worth double or triple since no new ones are available in mass now but I can’t sell it.

    • AirborneSoldier

      Dont use em for self defense either.

  • Tommy Tootone

    Here we go again more gun control nuts. How about the guy that used the truck to wipe out all those people in Nice? How about the guy a few days ago attacking people with a knife? You going to take away our trucks, cars and eating utensils for our protection??? You don’t get it…. It’s people that do the killing, the gun the truck the knife is only a tool. The thing to control is the warped individual that wants to do all the damage. Even if you could take away all the guns and you can’t they will still find other things to use. Get your head out of your bum.

  • Most people I’ve met, are undecided, but others kind of like the respect they require.

    Dont read this!:Lets talk about police using explosives though 🙂 I didn’t realize my military explosives training would come in handy at the police academy if I were to apply down South! (Sappers in the Breach) I know there are some from Ft. Leonard Wood out there.

    Dont worry about availability of weapons when it gets bad enough to need one. I dont think the State is going to take over. Assault Weapons mostly feed some insatiable, deep hunger for freedom… Really weird American only feeling.
    Ill go with whatever Mel Gibson says.

    • The movies Ive watched have depicted violence for as long as I can remember.

    • Joe Schmo

      The police do not use explosives like terrorists do. They are not using car bombs to attack people. It is a method used to neutralize a threat without sustaining mass casualties.

      “Dont worry about availability of weapons when it gets bad enough to need one.”

      You should worry about the availability of firearms. I’d rather have the option to defend myself rather than play opossum and hope I’m spared.

      “Assault Weapons mostly feed some insatiable, deep hunger for freedom… Really weird American only feeling.”

      Wrong. These “assault weapons” you’re referring to are not just play things. They are not available to feed a hunger for freedom. They are there to defend freedom. Remember the American Revolutionary War? Those muskets that were used? Yeah, those were “assault weapons” then. They were on par with what the military had, and Americans needed those to liberate themselves from the oppressive British Monarchy.

      I’m pretty sure wanting to be free is not just an American feeling. I’m pretty sure every human wants to live their own life. I do not understand where your comment is going at all.

  • Joe Schmo

    “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.”

    So if something uses direct gas impingement, then is banned because the AR uses that? If something uses the same firing pin retaining pin as an AR, its banned?

    This is just like Connecticut’s ban from 2013. They loosely outlined vague types of guns, and the bureaucrats make decisions at their discretion. Trust me when I say, it will only get worse. Connecticut had their own ban after 2004, it limited AR’s and other rifles to only have muzzle devices that are not flash suppressors, no collapsing/folding stocks, etc. Then the state took advantage of a mass shooting and instituted their own idea of an assault weapons ban. Now we are stuck with Pre-ban (1994) ARs as the only AR someone can buy… and they run for about $2,000-$3,000 for a completed and nicely made AR.

    This attack on freedom will only be mimicked in other states… Watch out.

  • Joe Schmo

    Another interesting note. Some anecdotal evidence of how messed up Massachusetts is.

    I was talking to a guy who was in 20th Special Forces Group in the Army National Guard. For those who do not know, the National Guard has US Army Special Forces (Green Berets) units stationed throughout the US. Well, he was pulled over in Massachusetts, the state in which his unit is located in, for some minor traffic violation. The guy had his kit with him; his plate carrier, rifle, mags, ammo, etc. The cop tried to arrest him for having 30 round mags and a non-compliant rifle, even though he needs that stuff to go to drill with and possessed legally. He ended up not getting arrested, but it shows the stupidity and lack of understanding of Massachusetts law makers and those who actively enforce laws that are poorly written and are barely enforceable to begin with .

    • Thank you for reminding me us of the dangers of not storing rifles in the trunk locked away and with ammo locked away separately.

      • Joe Schmo

        I’m not arguing with you Derek. He’s a soldier who saw multiple combat tours, are you going to try to lecture him on a stupid law that disables his rifle and his ability to access it in an emergency? I’ll give you his number, you can call him directly.

      • Special Forces are cannon fodder

    • Rock or Something

      I understand him having the rest of his gear, but his rifle as well? I know Green Beret’s get exceptions from Big Army, but I didn’t think carrying their own rifles was one of them. Now if it was a personal owned firearm, these draconian states aren’t going to make an exception, even to servicemembers. Ironically, if I was stationed in some of these states, a servicemember will find it extremely hard to practice their weapons drills or get personal range time with an AR pattern rifle.

      • AirborneSoldier

        Green berets get no exception. The army takes weapons accountability seriously

  • toms

    I getting pretty sick of judicial activism. So what changed legally between yesterday and today? The attorney generals feelings that’s what. No law was written, just someone’s feelings changed and they know no one in power will stop them. In fact this type of stuff is growing from the top down.

  • Blake

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

    So does this mean that if my scary-looking carbine came with Windows on it, I can install Linux instead & everything will be OK?

  • Noah Doyle

    Hmm…

    “Dear (firearm/accessory/ammo manufacturer), if you continue to do business with any government agency within Massachusetts, I will no longer do business with you.”

    Not too sure how effective it’d be, but it’s a start.

  • Paul Revere

    So the Judicial branch makes laws now?

    • QuadGMoto

      The Attorney General is typically part of the Executive Branch. Otherwise you would have the prosecutor and the judge being the same branch. I strongly doubt Mass. is any different in this respect.

  • KUETSA

    Ban these rifles, AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS EFFECTIVELY REPEALED!
    Guess we’ll see if Americans are going to let RADICAL PROGRESSIVE TERRORISTS subvert their constitution and consolidate power to achieve the socialist takeover of our country!
    Time will tell.

  • Patch Ate

    Every firearm that’s not an 80% turned into a lower have a serial that has a recorded history on a 4473 form that’s not supposed “not used for registration”. I think they can prove that you obtained it after Wednesday…

  • KUETSA

    They will NEVER stop till we are disarmed.
    They WILL force push to come to shove.
    In the end, we will surrender our second amendment rights, or be forced to fight to keep them.

  • Nick Zac

    This is illegal people. We have an AG being judge, jury, and executioner. This is an attack on our freedom. A denial of our right to bear arms. A disintegration of law and order. Don’t take this lightly. Call your state rep, GOAL, the NRA. Be active.

    • L. Roger Rich

      THEY ARE IN LOCK STEP WITH kALIFORNIA

  • Kivaari

    The people should be allowed to own any firearm allowed by police. Cops are not any better citizens than the average Joe or Jossie.

    • Barry

      Bingo. In my view, this is a simple test of “in common use for lawful purposes.” If they are widely used by law enforcement, they fit this category.

      In most of the nation, you CAN own any weapon used by police.

  • DanGoodShot

    So… basically, with THIS he is saying… “small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.” All guns will be banned??? Correct me if I am wrong here, but uh… regardless of what trinkets are on the outside, isn’t a gun still a gun and all guns are just as lethal as the next?? Going by that statement how is a 30-06 m1 Garand less lethal the a .223?? Anyone still doubt that an all out gun ban is coming?

  • It seems entirely appropriate that the Native guy on their state seal has an “Oh, FFS…” expression.

  • marathag

    That goes thru, be nice if the gun corps would embargo Mass. State and LEO sales.

  • EzGoingKev

    This is a perfect example of how gun people just do not get it. Everyone is talking about fighting this. JFC, it is Massachusetts, home of hack politicians.

    Gun companies need to start donating to the AG’s re-election campaign and those guns will be back on the shelves as quick as you can say “Teddy Kennedy”.

  • That line of talk is over—-

  • WhoBeen

    Why are the people not up in arms over this issue? …literally !!!

  • 40mmCattleDog

    THEM GOSHDURN DEADLY COLLAPSIN STOCKS AND SUCHNFORTH

  • Repoman3737

    We need to ban the state seal of Massachusetts it has a dangerous native (probably conservative too) holding an early assault weapon and that dangerous detachable flying arm holding an assault sword! Can’t have massachusetts supporting weapons on the state seal,think of the children..

  • LibsRinfants

    An “assault weapon” is essentially the same as the lever action rifle used by cowboys. If this government over reach isn’t stopped now they’ll come for your cowboy “assault weapon”, and every thing else you have. But hey, a pointed stick will be adequate personal protection in the eyes of the elite.

  • CommonSense033

    Islam is a death cult that’s been a stain on humanity for 1400 years. It’s holding us back. We would have WORLD PEACE right now if not for that stupid cult begun by a pedophile desert bandit. Just some saber rattling, but no bombs, no TSA, none of that nonsense.

    Their prophet, in his fifties, married a six year old girl and raped her at nine. THEY CELEBRATE THIS.

    You are what we call a useful idiot. You’re moving among wild animals and will be surprised when they turn on you. ISLAM IS A RELIGIO-POLITICAL SYSTEM COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE WITH WESTERN CIVILIZATION. Ask your neighbors you trust so much whether they’d want sharia. Go on, ask. They may lie, but watch the crawl of that lie through the darkness in their hearts, in their expression as they say it. Or they may obfuscate. They always do.

    Suit yourself. You’re just proving what I’ve said about Texas. You’re idiots who can’t even see that your state is already lost to illegals and muslim invaders.

    When the war starts, as it must to preserve our civilization, it’s obvious whose side you’ve chosen.

    • Cory C

      You just articulated an argument against religion in general. You did a very poor job of it because you’re hardly capable of expressing coherent thought without your paranoid bias shining through, but that’s nevertheless what you did. Of course there are many Muslims who are bad people who want to do bad things. I’m not disputing that, so you can put that particular straw man out to pasture. But I challenge you to show me any other religion whose faith hasn’t been misused to commit atrocity on the large scale. You either have to accept that all religions are capable of being weaponized or acknowledge that you’re using a double standard. If you want to view the world with the same logic one would use in a high school football team rivalry with their horrible, disposable, rivals, that other school that I don’t go to, then knock yourself out. But don’t expect me to find any logic in it. I’m not a cheerleader for Islam. It’s archaic and stupid, much like most other religions. If your contention is that there are a greater proportion of extremists practicing Islam than other religions, I probably agree. If you think that, because Islam has so many extremists, we should probably screen them much more harshly when they come to this country, I probably agree. But your contention that all or most Muslims are evil is just unsubstantiated. There are literally billions of Muslims. Do they all, by definition, believe in things that I don’t beleive in? Sure. But to imply that a majority of approximately 1.5 billion people want to destroy America is just a reflection of your bias. I think the fact that you can’t articulate any of your points without screaming and ranting and getting your panties in a wad is a pretty good indication as to how toothless your arguments are. Say, “a bunch of Muslims are bad and want to hurt us,” and I’ll agree. But to suggest that my neighbors who work hard, westernize their children, make a good living, and do their best to steer clear of people like you are guilty by association is something that I don’t find to be credible.

  • Barry

    I’m not sure how this is remotely legal. Massachusetts passes a law defining exactly what makes a weapon prohibited. Gun manufacturers comply with law and remove prohibited features. Now without passing a new law, they ban these guns because they share common parts with the guns that have prohibited features?

    Did I miss anything? Sounds like lawlessness to me. Hope this gets taken to court and an impartial judge can rule on it.

    • AirborneSoldier

      Legal? We have a new paradigm friend, legal is not part of it. Vigilance, focus on that.

  • BryanS

    You all are looking for logic… thats rich.

  • Jim

    Commercial AR’s etc. are NOT “Assault Weapons” In order to be an assault weapon it MUST be capable of fully automatic fire. If not and you try to ‘assault’ an objective held by and enemy force you will be killed quickly. The best answer to stop tis is to enforce the existing laws that are on the books already and if someone uses a firearm in the commission of a crime then they automatically get 5 years added to their sentence. Those 5 years CANNOT be reduced by good behavior, parole, or ANY other means. You WILL serve those five years in addition to your other crimes.

  • nick

    we had a mentally ill guy up here in Canada shoot one of the honour guards at our Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, then, turn, hijack a car, drive up to the steps of our parliament and get inside after shooting the guy on the door!

    Whereupon, he was justly smoked by the Sgt at Arms, Mr . Vickers ( in an insanely great, slide on the ground under the shooter move by the way !)

    was he using a scary operator black operator , operational firearm?

    nope….some old beat up 1894 30-30 lever…..

    glad we have restrictions on the AR series and Prohibs on the AK series….I feel much safer

    sorry to hear of your troubles down south

    • AirborneSoldier

      Im sure the people beheaded share your pov

  • Capman911

    The ARs that are out there will be grandfatheredited in like in 1984 if I read this right. If the AR manufacturers won’t to keep selling guns maybe they should change the internals that would be different than an M4 or M16. This and a couple little changes would bypass the law, if parts didn’t interchange then it would be legal. Cut the threaded end from the barrel and it will be like a Remington 700 308. Instead of the pull handle put a side lever on the bolt so it works like a Remington 742 woodman ter still semi automatic.All of this has been done by gun builders. If that doesn’t work vote out your governor and put in a pro 2nd amendment governor and other government officials.

    • echoeynames

      the thing is she didnt even define what the law is, she literally just grandstanded a temper tantrum like a typical authoritarian, full of furor and emotion with no actual legal basis whatsoever

      no one has any idea what is banned or unbanned under the current ‘ruling’ she decided to ever so determinedly change with her wonderful judge jury and executioner powers

  • For the Love of Mike, I’m happy that I live in Florida!

  • niner_four_whiskey

    Welcome to lawmaking by fiat. “It’s illegal because I said so.”

  • Bob

    they should make it ILLEGAL to reproduce in that state too! Just like the Peoples Republic of Kalifornicate and a few others.

  • Cymond

    The CA ban on AK and AR clones was stuck down by Kasler v. Lockyer. If I remember correctly, the judge ruled that it was unconstitutionally vague.

  • A Fascist Corgi

    This makes me sad because the relatively lax gun laws in this country is one of the few things that I still like about America, and because I know that the 2nd Amendment is going to get completely destroyed over the next decade because the demographic groups that are taking over this country consistently vote for a political party that’s extremely hostile towards gun rights.

  • Relayer

    It might not be Local or Federal LEOs doing the confiscation. #UNBlueLivesDontMatter…

  • Joeschmoe

    The Federal Constitution and the Declaration prescribe definite and serious consequences to any individual that would usurp the natural law rights of an individual to protect himself and his family. It does not matter what a corrupt Supreme Court or state court or County Court interprets, the law is clear and those inalienable rights shall not be infringed. Those who would rule against our inalienable rights need to know it will go no further. By keeping me from defending me and mine you have made an overt threat of violence to Ward me and you have deprived me of life liberty and property. You will be treated no differently than any other Criminal encountered on the street threatening me and mine with bodily harm. Conduct yourself accordingly.

  • Loog Moog

    Every now and then, it is a good idea to break the windows at the homes and offices of our supposed ‘betters’, just to remind them of who they work for.

  • I might be wrong here but i thought that the AG was only suppose to enforce the law not make the law now she has overstepped her bounds just like Obama has buy going around the State Senate and the House that is blatant disregard for the Constitution & the Bill Of Rights yes i did say Rights its not a Privilege its our Right to own Gun`s given to us buy our forefathers & the Bill OF Right`s JMO

    Oh and buy the way her statement was if the State Senate & the House of Representatives won`t do anything I will

  • Jakob Stagg

    I see two options emerging: Leave Massachusetts, or drive the idiots into the sea. Either is preferable to the status quo.

  • Bob Smith

    I think too many Redcoats settled in Massachusetts after the Revolutionary War.

  • gman

    “This directive does both.”

    ooo, government by directive! cool!

  • TimeHasCome

    Remember Libtards : AR stands for ” Assault Rifle” and 15 stands for ” 15 rounds per second from the clip thingy”. Thank you Diane Feinstein.

  • Gary Kirk

    So, this is now illegal in Massachusetts..

    • Realist

      No, you’re okay…it’s the 5 point pitchforks that are outlawed. Yours is a ban-compliant garden implement.

  • AirborneSoldier

    Lol

  • Follow Me Boys

    Mass lets this happen then they are sheep. They will come and get the ones you have already. I see any weapon being banned a democrat does not lie. Of course exceptions such as his/her security detail. I hope he dies

  • Strangely Sane

    “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”

    As if the insanity of banning a firearm on the strength of its cosmetics alone isn’t daft enough the legislators then go on to say that there’s a cut off period between ‘good assault weapon’ and ‘bad assault weapon for exactly the same model of firearm.

    I dunno – our UK firearm legislation is silly enough but at least there’s some consistency – it’s done to pander to the tabloids and their readers. The USA manage to take the silly to new levels.

    I suppose the good people of Massachusetts ought to be grateful (?) that the people that wrote this legislation are totally ignorant of what constitutes a true assault weapon – otherwise they’d be after your old Lee Enfields, Mosin Nagants, Mausers, BAR, M1s et al too..

  • JohnEffKerry

    I feel safer already! There should be a line around the block of gang bangers turning in their illegal guns!

  • eddyjames

    Can anyone tell me the last time somebody stuck a bayonet into someone that was attached to a so called “assault rifle”? Or clubbed them with a folded stock.

  • Patrick ONeil

    Still ways around it by going around the rules on “duplicates” if desired. It would be annoying to the owner but make your “similar” rifle so that parts are not interchangeable with parts for the original. Make the barrel, bolt carrier, etc, different enough to not be drop in interchangeable with parts for the “real deal”. Otherwise it operates and looks almost identical.

  • mxprivateer

    A state’s attorney general cannot create new laws or modify existing laws, their jobs is only to enforce existing laws. New or changed laws can only come from the state legislature.

    • Joel WS

      That was OLD America, before Leftists streamlined tyranny.

      • mxprivateer

        You are correct, 8 years of Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch have proven that to be true.

  • Dragonheart

    Being a native and long time Texan, we Texans believe strongly in human rights. That being said I don’t have a problem if a bunch of nut cases who want to band together and live however they want as long as innocents aren’t brutalized. The problems with these nuts is the totally screw up their nest (the big cities of CA are good examples) then because things get so bad and out of control there these nuts move on to greener pastures, bringing their crazy ideas and attempt to change the new nest into the armpit they left.

  • QueenAnnesRevenge

    To all,

    I am here to formally petition that our brothers and sisters in the glorious state of Massachusetts go fourth in their endeavours to protect the masses and outlaw the dread assault hands. These evil weapons have been responsible for the destruction of countless lives and have even utilized other assault weapons to magnify their effects with dreaded efficacy. Assault hands have laid waste to numerous dinezens, victim to backyard brawls, let alone have facilitated the wreck less driving of assault cars, to wit have claimed more victims in the great state than even assault weapons. Assault hands have even caused great mayhem by the creation of assault pressure cookers. So it is by this day that a bill will be presented in the beloved state of Massachusetts to have all who reside and enter the state to turn in their assault hands. Please head immediately to your local government managed Hospital for your foam replacements.

    That is all, your government has spoken.

    • Joel WS

      Get rid of the arms and the hands will follow automatically.

      • QueenAnnesRevenge

        Lmao, foam arms, then we’ll have have to ban the pool noodles

  • Padmmegh Ambrela

    WTF the term ASSAULT WEAPON is bullshit any weapon or any thing with possibility of being used as weapon, in the hands of a determined individual is lethal like few days earlier an Afghani asylum seeker killed 4 people and injured dozens in Germany with a knife does that mean people should be banned from having a knife instead the law should have been about proper background checking, mental stability check up before selling guns and other weapons (swords etc) so that these weapons don’t end in the hands of nutjobs like in Florida Club shooting case. Had their been such law to only sell those with proper background and mental state Florida incident would have been averted when the SOB tried to buy guns. “BECAUSE PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE”

  • Mort Leith

    So now the corrupt libT ard-NA Z1 politicians in TAXachusetts have decided that you only have 10 rounds to defend your family of 4 when 3-4 criminals kick your door down and do a Home Invasion on you…

    That’s only 2 shots per person,, so you better be VERY accurate under severe pressure.

    “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.”

  • durabo

    Massachusetts should remove the arm and sword plus the bowman from its state seal, and replace it with an image of Bathhouse Barry in a tutu, standing on his tippy-toes.

  • Igor

    How much weapon ban help in Munih

  • Michael Grogan

    Does both? Another law that only limits law abiding citizens’ rights and ability to defend themselves. Someone intent on crime or insanity will aquire the gun illegally (by stealing it from the police or military, if necessary). Or use a truck. Or gasoline. Or household chemicals. These people want citizens defenseless so they can take the rest of your rights without worrying about resistance. What other rights is this guy against? Speech? Thought?

  • Todd

    So Mini14/30’s are good to go?

  • Todd

    Where are the “firearms NOT politics” people?

    These two are connected you can’t deny it. You must discuss it because without fighting for your right we wouldn’t have this or any other blog/forum to talk about firearms NOT politics.

    You might be able to limit the article discussion of politics but sometimes government steps out of line and it needs to be called out. Remember the governor of this state is a Republican and supports the AG!

  • Jay Leonard

    Today at 10:00 am…..WE WILL SEE!!!!!

  • supergun

    An ASSAULT BAN on the 2nd Amendment. Only the citizens can change things. If they are willing. If they care.

  • Joel WS

    [But our job is to enforce state laws and to keep people safe.]

    How is further limiting a person’s Right to defend themselves keeping them safe? By “people” does she mean only “government” people? And by “keep people” does she mean “keep” like “own”, “subjugate”, or “restrain”?

    One might interpret the words to read “Our job is to restrain the subjugated to keep government agents safe.”

    Now her egregious regulation is starting to make some kind of sense.

  • SD

    At some point, TFB is going to have to choose a side and do away with the “Not Politics” crap. Sorry, but firearms are a political issue.

  • Vanns40

    It’s time to put pressure on S&W and any other company still there to not only move but to not sell any product to any LEO agency in Mass. You sell to them we won’t buy from you. With the exception of Colt the civilian market accounts for 85% of sales of firearms and accessories in this country, NOT LEO’s.

  • Isaac Arnold

    The Second Amendment does include the right to self protection, but the reason for the Amendment is to put power into the hands of the People and give them the ability to rebel against tyranny. That means combat weapons. Those who would say the amendment is obsolete, I would point to the battle of Athens, which took place in post World War Two Tennessee. Ladies and gentlemen, our Constitutional Rights are only as good as the people on the Supreme Court. Please vote this election and vote for the guy with the funny hair.

    • QueenAnnesRevenge

      Which one?

  • UnpluggedAndAwake

    You can be a criminal without being a villain. All 2A supporters and believers in the US Constitution that countless patriots have given their lives to protect need to contemplate what the near future may bring. Do you really believe the Constitution defines, not grants, our inalienable rights, and that these rights, not being granted by governments of people, cannot be revoked by people. If you believe the 2A is the definition of a right and not a permission, prepare your resolve now. The future may test all of us. Will we choose to remain patriots and become criminals, or submit to the tyranny of the state?

  • talgus

    these laws are based upon scary features in the minds of people whose total knowledge of firearms comes from HOLLYWOOD. I suggest, ban all firearms in fictional movies/videos.No more Jason Bourne, Matt

  • cisco kid

    Massachusetts did this because of the recent Supreme Court ruling on Sandy Hook said that the States could ban any or all weapons at their discretion. The District Courts in California last month ruled concealed carry is not a right as it threatens the “Power Elite” who only has the right to be protected with weapons. All this gave Massachusetts the green light to completely ban all modern weapons without passing any new laws. This is precisely what Uncle Joe Stalin did and he set the blueprint for the future of the United States which is now in the process of banning and later confiscating and destroying all modern weapons.

  • Are We Really Free?

    He who would trade freedom for safety will have neither…

  • The cradle of Liberty had become its grave.

  • me

    I am going to send the mASS attorney general a pix of my AK with TWO pistol grips. you see…the extra pistol grip allows the rate of fire to increase 10 fold.

  • gabriel brack

    Ahhh, the good old days.

  • RWE

    When did Massachusetts become a sovereign country? I must have missed the news. If it hasn’t, how did the state government do away with the Constitution? (In that once Proud and Patriotic state). A state that once dared to throw off tyrants. Now it’s a state run by tyrants. Didn’t take too long to go full circle, did it? Our Founders would never have stood for such nonsense.

    • ardvietvet

      I moved out of Mass. 8 years ago.I have tried to help pro-gun groups for years,just to let you know the NRA has done NOTHING to help in Mass. They have written Mass off a long time ago.

  • Gerald Adams

    Next they’ll pass a law banning Flopcratchits. After the law is passed, they’ll start defining what might be the features that make an object a “Flopcratchit”. Of course, the definition is purposely flexible so attributes can be added by whim.

  • Paul

    It would make a difference if they banned assault BEHAVOIR.

  • Secundius

    I already have the “Lower Receiver”! Does Buying ONLY the “Upper Receiver” Constitute Buying a Complete Assault Weapon?

    • ardvietvet

      NO,but if you put the upper on the lower it does!

      • Secundius

        Really? You can buy ALL the Upper Receivers you WANT, EVEN without a Gun Permit. But without the Lower Receiver, ALL you have is a Paperweight or the Makings of a Lamp Base…

        • ardvietvet

          You got it.

  • Booth

    I know a lot of commentors on this thread are going to tell me to shove off or go die somewhere, but I figured I would pipe up. I would consider myself center left when it comes to politics, but that being said I am contradictory in that I am a full supporter of the 2nd amendment. Far as I am concerned this ban on assault style weapons in MA will lead to dark places. I am afraid for the future of firearms ownership because of things like this and know that someone like Hillary gets elected we are in for a world of hurt. Here’s where I don’t see eye to eye. I’ve seen a lot online lately about proposed legislation to curtail the rights of muslims and impose laws that would bar their rights to enter our country. As a WAS who identifies as Christian I have noticed that religion has become more maligned in recent times on all fronts. The kind of language being used to describe Muslims seems to lump them all into one category and that is that of extremist untrustworthy zealots just itching for a chance to go postal and pledge allegiance to Daesh. My own personal interactions with Islamic neighbors has been positive. I don’t fear them because I can see the same desire for good and peace that we want. I also have seen enough to know that they are just as appalled by all the death and mayhem that is sadly becoming more commonplace in our society. I just have a hard time calling them a threat when I see images of a teenaged Yazidi girl with an AKM or an 8 year old boy and his grandmother standing on a village wall similarly armed so they can drive Daesh out or protect their families from a cruel fate. Isn’t that what we believe in? Defending our families from violent oppression? Finally there is no doubt that a segment of the Islamic population has accepted the philosophies espoused by radical clerics and evil men. But then so have Christians in our own country been swayed to violence by their pastors as have been other groups throughout the ages. No group, religious or secular, is immune to those lines of thought. Let’s stick to the topic at hand. Someone thinks it’s a really good idea to keep weapons out of law-abiding citizens hands. Yikes.

    • Mort Leith

      ALL muzlims swear by the same satanic bible (the quran) so NONE are good if they are true muzlims…. they are worship the commandments that tell them to MURDER ALL Infidels !
      Get a clue already
      And islam is NOT a religion,, it is a sick satanic CULT !

    • Repoman3737

      I pretty much agree with what you said the problem is in the numbers. The amount of Muslims in society is staggering. If just 1/2 of a percent is radical it equals millions of radicals. The number that is not radical but wants sharia or thinks radical means are justified is quite a bit higher than 1/2 a percent so we are dealing with millions that want to kill us and 10s of millions who think killing us is justified. The question is how do you tell the difference between the 3 groups the good the bad and the ugly?

  • ardvietvet

    NECN devoted 15 seconds to this important news today at 1200.There is a pro-gun rally going on at the State House in Boston,now.My son is there,I could not make it.Maura Healey the AG of Mass. took upon herself to do this,I thought she took an oath to uphold the Constition when she took office?She should be brought up on charges of TREASON,NOW!!!!

    • Leveller

      What WAS or IS the Treasonable Act that She Committed?

      • ardvietvet

        By not defending the Constitution that she had to swear to do when she took office,the Second Ammendent IS the part she should be held accountable for,she had to swear to defend the Constitution against all people foriegn and domestic.

        • Leveller

          There’s 535 Politicians in Congress? How many of them FALL Into that Category!

          • ardvietvet

            All that do not follow the Constitution that they swore to defend,I guess you never served in the Armed Forces Of The USA or never took a Civics class.You should do some more learning.

          • Leveller

            ALL Members of Congress have to Swear to a Loyalty Oath TOO. Hillary Clinton, was ALSO a Senator. Just Like John McCain, who Outsources to the PRC and Makes HIMSELF Richer in the Process.

          • ardvietvet

            Again you NEED an honest Civics course,business is covered by the Constitution,the Second Ammendent IS!!!And Speaking of Hillary,she belongs in jail for what she has done.You are very young or very ill informed about what the Founding Fathers framed to be OUR country.I will reitterate,you need to more reading,and not the progressive drivel that has been permeated throught our schools and news of late.

          • Leveller

            So there’s Patriotism, and there’s PATRIOTISM! Congress has Variable Patriotism, and everyone else is ABSOLUTE Patriotism!

          • ardvietvet

            Wrong.

          • Leveller

            “WHAT EVER”! Yeh!!!

  • Mort Leith

    How many doofus people think that the AR on the AR-15 stands for ‘Assault Rifle” ? ?

    It stands for ARMALITE,..,. the company that made it originally in the 1950s

    Thank GOD I live in GA,, where we actually did away with almost all of the ‘LibT ard Killing Zones’ (aka Gun Free Zones) around 2 years ago…..
    and we are still Free Men………………

  • spaceweasel

    Connecticut and Massachusetts are nests of Marxist Liberal corruption, and they don’t want citizens to have the ability to defend themselves because it interferes with their totalitarian view of what government should be. A disgrace to the Constitution, and a reprehensible way to treat their population. Unfortunately, most residents in these two States, are so brainwashed and beaten down they no longer comprehend what is happening to them.

    • Mort Leith

      They are disgusting libT ardNA Z1 politicians who are complicit in the murder of innocent citizens…. AND their families

  • OLDNAVYVET

    Done by “Royal Decree?”

    • Juanito Ibañez

      “Off with her head!”
      -Alice in Wonderland

      • Secundius

        Unfortunately that ONLY be done by Sovereign Rights, and the USA Doesn’t Have a Sovereign…

  • Bob Waters

    totally ironic isn’t it– the state where liberty started–the state that rose up and defied” Big Government, ie the King of England” and fired that shot heard around the world is taking it upon themselves to curtail and choke the liberty of it’s citizens with a new “assualt weapons ban”. An assualt weapon by defination is one which fires multiple shots with ONE pull of the trigger–those have been illegal since the ’30’s, and now some politician is taking away peoples liberties again—-Tea anyone?

  • Bob Waters

    one more thought— if I don’t like what you say or think and as a result I pick up a rock and knock your head off, guess what I’ve just used an assault rock!

  • CanineCo

    They’re freakin’ machines, fergodsakes!! They lay in your gunsafe or bedroom corner collecting dust until you take them to the range; hunting; defending your family; whatever. They don’t work unless attached to a human being with good or evil intent. Complete idiocy.

  • carlcasino

    Mass.AG must think he is Obama. “I’m issuing a Directive” ?? Okay all you “Mass. Indentured servants get on your knees and OBEY this dismissal of the Constitution of the United States of America because the AG doesn’t know the difference between a TRUE Assault Weapon and a Look alike Semi Auto. Reading comprehension is lost on Progressives. Shall NOT be INFRINGED is a phrase that even a 1st year law student can understand.

    • Secundius

      ONE Drawback Though? When the Constitution was Written, there were 15 Commonwealth States, before 1789. ALL Laws were ALREADY in Place in those States. Those that WEREN’T Commonwealth States, State Constitution was Adopted to Reflect those Laws Made After 1789…

  • SheriffJon

    With such a high level of stupidity, ignorance and BS, I have listed Massachusetts as one of my places to avoid at all costs. The term, “assault weapons”, can be applied by our fearless leaders to spoons, rubber bands or binkies, if we could get them away from legislators, not to mention ANY firearm you can name. Do we refer to delivery trucks as assault weapons? No, we do not. Do we call baseball bats assault weapons? Ridiculous. Do we even refer to plastique explosives as assault weapons? Not yet. All of these have been used to kill people, sometimes many of them. But any crime committed with a firearm will be promptly referred to as a “gun crime” and cries of banning them all immediately erupt. Somehow, the need to put the blame where it belongs goes right out the window if the weapon of choice ends up being a gun. punishing the culprit quickly fades but not the call for banishing firearms. If we banned every object used to kill someone, we would be back in the stone age. So what makes the difference that we would desire to ban guns but not other common “assault weapons”? After all, if each named object killed someone it must be a qualified “assault weapon”, right? The short answer is, the Founding Fathers realized that any government not held to the fire could and would become tyrannical, as has ours. So, they made sure that the people, who hire and fund the government would have the means to fight that tyranny if it ever came to the point of overrunning the people through insane laws, regulations, taxes and abuses such as those of commonly used today by the IRS, the Justice Department, The DOE, the ATF, EPA and a load of others not to mention all the lawmakers that violate the Constitution on a daily basis. That protection comes from the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which was created for the express purpose of defining what the government could not touch in any way without breaking the supreme law of the land, again, which they do on a daily basis. Unfortunately, the people have allowed the government to violate their right rights, OUR rights, for so long that we have already been overrun. And we keep electing and re-electing people who don’t care as long as they can do whatever they want, mostly for their own gain. If you were a member of the legislature who was well on the way to reaching millionaire status off the fatted cow, would you want the people, the largest army in the world to continue to be armed? That, my fellow Americans, is why gun control has been and still is the hottest issue among the tyrants. And it isn’t going to fade away, not as long as we keep electing socialists, communists and people who think they should establish and maintain control over all those who don’t hold to their personal beliefs, even though they may be well in the minority. Now, what YOU do about it, yes YOU, is up to you. You hold in your voting hands they future of the United States for generations to come. Think clearly, discuss often, research what you don’t understand and become wise. Then vote with an informed and educated mind on the facts you now have. Your grandkids and great grandkids will have to live with what you do in November. I, for one, intend to vote for freedom for everyone, not just the elitists who will drop us like a hot potato, again, as they always seem to do.

  • Mort Leith

    The whole WORD ‘Assault Rifle’ is a joke made up by the libT ard-NA Z1 politicians and corrupt unethical left media…
    “Assault’ weapon refers to AUTOMATIC firing MACHINE GUN ! ! !
    Which is legal here in the USA but with a very strict licensed stamp that costs upwards of $500+

    The libT ard media likes to refer erroneously to an ASSAULT weapon simply because it SOUNDS scarier…
    How bout I put my ASSAULT FOOT up theirA55es ?
    Sounds scarier already doesn’t it?

  • Mort Leith

    Part #3

    Incidentally, there’s no such thing as a “high caliber” anything. Those are meaningless words used by anti-gun writers to make some gun sound fearsome. Same for “high power.” That M16 and the AR-15 fire the same round, but they’re anything but high powered. The cartridge they fire is considered borderline weak and inhumane for a thin skinned little deer, and is actually less powerful than just about every other cartridge used by ordinary hunters. Those 22 caliber bullets are much smaller caliber than 30 caliber (0.300 inch diameter) hunting bullets. They’re way smaller than the 50 caliber (half inch) bullets used in hotdog-sized cartridges that cost $5 a pop, and are used on those big belt fed machine guns on aircraft and by wealthy target shooters (who Dianne Feinstein worries are practicing to shoot through her armored limousine).
    Lessons #4-11: Random Thoughts You Need to Know About Guns
    #4. Guns aren’t required to be “registered” in most jurisdictions. Please don’t write that a gun was “unregistered” if there is no law requiring it to be. To those of us who know (there are lots of us) an “unregistered gun” sounds as absurd as an “unregistered baseball bat.”
    #5. No self-respecting gun owner uses the phrase “packing heat.” It’s called “carrying”, whether concealed or open. “Packing heat” is old-time gangster slang with biased connotations. Avoid it unless you’re writing an anti-gun op-ed or a bad detective novel.
    #6. Machine guns are legal (under federal law, and in most states). To buy one, a person must pay a $200 tax, undergo a background check, and wait maybe a year or more for the paperwork to process. But only a limited number of specially registered ones may be bought and sold by people. These are all older than 1986 and there are so few that what should cost $1000 new in a free market costs $10,000 or more. (There’s something like 1 legal machine gun per 1000 adult American males). That means that they’re only for wealthy collectors like Steven Spielberg, which explains why they aren’t used in crimes. Ever.
    #7. Silencers are legal in most states. They’re properly called “suppressors” and we also use the slang term “can.” “Silencer” is OK to write, but it bothers a few gun geeks because they don’t make a gun literally silent (maybe as annoyingly loud as an air nailer – not the “phffft” or “ptew” of Hollywood movies). In Hollywood, only bad guys use them. In reality, it’s only good guys who passed a background check and paid a $200 tax just to make their guns a little easier on everyone’s ears.
    #8. Sinister gun collections. When you’re reporting on some backwoods kook who was raided by a SWAT team, remember that all those guns and ammo you’re breathlessly reporting on are probably perfectly legal. The cops know that, but they know you’ll ignorantly imply that there’s something illegal about all the guns and ammo they’ve laid out on the table for you to photograph for the evening news. It’s actually quite normal for upstanding gun enthusiasts and hunters to own dozens of firearms (or to wish they did). It deceives your readers and amuses gun enthusiasts when we read that “the arsenal included over 1000 rounds of ammunition.” That’s because when we spend a weekend taking a shooting course, or just out having fun shooting at targets, we can easily shoot 1000 rounds (no it’s not a cheap hobby). 5000 rounds might sounds like a lot, but that much 22 ammo can easily be hand carried in a shoe box by a strong boy.
    Also, a personal gun and ammo collection isn’t an “arsenal” unless you’re trying to demonize the owner, and strike fear in the hearts of your readers. It’s an “ample collection,” and for most gun owners, never ample enough.
    #9. Ammunition in a burning building is no danger to firefighters. When the powder burns, the case just pops off the bullet. Firefighters with heavy suits and eye protection are in no danger. An excellent online video by SAAMI (one of my clients, and the organization that sets technical standards for ammunition) titled “Sporting Ammunition and the Fire Fighter” shows how surprisingly safe ammunition is in a fire and subject to other extreme stresses (and it’s cool to watch truckloads of ammo get shot up and burn up!)
    #10. An “assault rifle” is a military rifle that can shoot full auto.
    “Semi-automatic” means that a single shot is fired for each trigger pull, and the gun automatically loads the next round. Most pistols carried by police officers are semi-automatic.
    An “assault weapon” is a term made up by people trying to ban semiautomatic rifles, by falsely implying that they’re full-auto assault rifles.
    “Modern Sporting Rifle” is the industry standard term for the popular AR-15 and similar rifles with a military appearance. I prefer “Sport Utility Rifle.”
    #11. The NRA isn’t the “gun industry lobby.” They may have millions of individual members whose interests they represent when lobbying lawmakers and pursuing civil rights lawsuits. But the real “gun lobby” is the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) that represents all the gun companies (I’m their trademark attorney, too). The NSSF has the mission: “To promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports.” They also publish an excellent booket that not only educates journalists, but is a goldmine for gun enthusiasts looking to sharpen their firearms knowledge.

  • Mort Leith

    Part #2

    Lesson #2: They’re “Magazines,” Not Clips
    When you journalists write about “clips” you’re always wrong. Always.
    Magazines are containers that hold a bunch of cartridges, and are inserted into a gun to load it all at once, making reloading quick. Unless a gun looks like an old-time cowboy or a bird-hunter might use it, it probably has a magazine. A magazine itself is just a little sheet metal or plastic box with a spring inside (much like a Pez dispenser), and presents no danger of any kind. For pistols, they’re contained entirely in the grip, and for rifles, they usually stick out below the bottom, in front of the trigger.

    A Candy Magazine?
    If you’re curious, “clips” are archaic devices known only to gun enthusiasts, and are essentially never used by modern police or military, or by people who use guns for self-defense or sport. They’re used with old-style military rifles (like the WWII “Garand” they carried in Saving Private Ryan).
    If you must know, clips are for loading rifles that don’t take magazines. They’re little strips of metal that hold a set of cartridges by their rear ends so they can be shoved into the rifle all at once. But they never come up in the news, so you can simply delete the word from your journalist dictionary. I can assure you that over all my years in the gun industry, I’ve never heard anyone use “clip” as slang for magazine. Maybe Hollywood gangsters and anti-gun reporters still do, but no one else does.
    Incidentally, worrying about large magazines giving criminals firepower is pretty silly, because the whole point of magazines is how quick and easy it is to change them. I’ve seen live demos in which a shooter changed pistol magazines so fast it was a blur. And rifle magazines can be changed almost as fast with a little practice.
    So, if you’re writing a story that involves magazines and are still confused, my advice to journalists is to drop by any gun shop and tell the guy behind the counter that you’re working on a story, and would like to see how magazines work. Trust me, you’ll learn all you need to know.
    Lesson #3: Calibrating Your “Caliber”
    This one confused me back when I started learning about guns. All you need to know is that caliber usually refers to the diameter of the bullet (and of the barrel of the gun that fires it).
    There’s no clear rule, so don’t even bother trying to explain it. If a cop tells you the caliber of a gun used in a crime, just report it, and we’ll know what it means even if you don’t.
    The cartridge designation will give you a good idea of the caliber, but can lead to confusion. 357 Magnum has a 0.357 inch diameter bullet. But so does a 38 Special. A kid’s 22 squirrel rifle has the same bullet diameter as the M16 military rifle but they’re otherwise different in almost every other respect.

  • Mort Leith

    Part #1

    The Journalists’ Guide to Guns (How Not to Look Like an Idiot When Writing About Firearms)
    Journalists. Bless their hearts. As a rule of thumb, any time we read a news story about a subject or incident we already know a lot about, it turns out that about 25% (many times MORE) of what’s reported is simply wrong.
    This is why knowledgeable gun owners distrust many news stories involving guns: because too many “journalists” display an ignorance of firearms that would be laughable if it weren’t so appalling. If they can’t get their facts straight about gun technology and shooting, then we don’t trust them on much else.
    Here we go:
    Lesson #1: They’re “Cartridges,” Not Bullets
    Bullets are little lumps of lead. Inert, harmless little pieces of soft metal. They’re a component of ammunition, but they’re not ammunition.
    What you journalists are almost always talking about when you mistakenly use the term “bullet” is “cartridge.”
    Cartridges (or “rounds”) are little units of ammunition that go “bang” when they’re hit just right. The gunpowder burns, the bullet flies away, and the case stays behind with the gun.
    Here are some correct(ed) usage examples:
    “… a bill to limit magazine capacity to 10 bullets rounds…”
    “…a bill to limit purchasers to no more than 50 bullets cartridges per day…”
    “…bullets have been recovered as far as a mile from the rifle range…”
    One classic example of how this issue can confuse the ignorant is the case when a neighbor objecting to a gun range nearby “salted” her home’s roof gutters with a few “bullets” to make it appear that they were unsafely escaping the disputed range. She foolishly had tossed live cartridges onto the roof to roll into the gutters, and the responding deputy Sheriff rolled his eyes, knowing the guns don’t expel live rounds of ammunition.
    Michael Bloomberg’s well-funded anti-gun “Every Town for Gun Safety” group created a laughable propaganda image showing a rifle cartridge shooting out of the muzzle of a gun barrel.’

    Anti-gun activists show their ignorance.

  • safelyiniowa

    I don’t recall any roller delayed firearms banned as assault weapon. Revive the CETME C and L!

  • safelyiniowa

    I just checked and none of the named assault weapons include roller delayed actions. So a CETME, G3, HK91, HK93 etc with appropriate stock would still be legal, from what I can see. Basicly she banned all modern firearms, which is far beyond any assault weapon ban. She might as well ban cars with automatic transmissions.

    • Mort Leith

      Serves the libT ard people that live there right,,, THEY voted for these libT ard-NA Z1 pieces of shiit that RULE OVER The People instead of SERVING them

    • Repoman3737

      Look at original assault weapon definition of semi auto with 2 of the no no features. I don’t think they would be allowed under original definition

      • safelyiniowa

        With appropriate changes to stock and muzzle they pass the banned features test. The important thing is they pass the new rule about similar operation.

  • Mort Leith

    The REAL problem is that these liberal DUMBa55es move down south and forget to leave their DumbA55 libT ard voting habits up north..
    then they ruin the southern States just like they did up north !

  • Gunner4guy

    Since this BS appears to be going into effect then maybe ALL the makers still in MA need to leave(and make all their employees jobless). Next would be to refuse ANY sales or service of ANY firearms to LE of any kind indefinitely. Probably should make that apply to ammo sales to LE as well. The AG might not care but I’d bet she’d get a LOT of flak from all the cops in the state. Just sayin’…!

  • SemperFlyBoy

    FBI data does not support the panic over eliminating “assault rifles” in Massachusetts. Here are their latest numbers of murders by rifle OF ANY TYPE over the previous ten years from their “Table 20” data.
    2014 – 0
    2013 – 2
    2012 – 0
    2011 – 0
    2010 – 0
    2009 – 2
    2008 – 2
    2007 – 1
    2006 – 2
    Nine homicides by all types of rifles in the 10 years cited. Armageddon? Don’t think so. A shame? Always. Will these additional laws change things for the better? What do you think?

  • valorius

    I’m an independent, and try to keep an open mind on all theses issues, and i honestly just dont see how a judge will let this stand. The statute is EXTREMELY clear what constitutes an assault weapon. You cant just rewrite a law….but i guess she’s gonna try any way.

  • KUETSA

    This law will stand
    Look at the NY SAFE Act and court rulings on it
    The only question is if anyone will comply
    The NY SAFE Act has a 4% compliance rate
    And in the end if Americans will INSIST on KEEPING THEIR RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ARMS
    (As intended by the Second Amendment)
    The Second Amendment is a right to POWER

  • Brad Ferguson

    Hmmm……So it’s “assault weapons” they’re after, right ? So I’ll be good with a FAL or M-14 right ? Because they’re NOT “assault rifles”. FAL and M-14’s are full size Battle Rifles.

    • Ching Willy Hung

      By the wording, it seems FN2000, FN SCAR, AUG and Tevor are OK. they don’t have interchangeable parts with AR or AK

  • Baggy270

    Smith and Wesson should grow a pair and move their facilities out of Mass!

  • Tothe

    1775: Gun owners shoot law enforcement officers who are restricting firearm rights.
    2016: Meh.

    • Fred Bastiat

      The tree of liberty is looking a little starved of fertilizer and just a tad too much like Charlie Brown’s sad little Christmas tree.

  • dltaylor51

    This is the kind of insanity that happens when you have democrat politicians in power in your state,where do you think the next radical Islamic terrorists are going to attack?Its probably a 99.999% chance that its going to happen in a liberal controlled anti second amendment blue state.So much for the demo’s making you safer.

  • MaveRick

    Telescopic sights are interchangeable with what they call “assault rifles”. Does this mean that they can ban any firearm that accepts a telescopic sight?

  • James Kelly

    Guess this means my Marlin 39A, with 15-round magazine will be banned in Massachusetts. Pleased that I got it before Wednesday. .

  • safelyiniowa

    They ban castrated copies of rifles that are too big to hide and can’t shoot any faster than a pistol. They fire a pathetic .223 round that can’t even go through a cement block. Obviously this war on so called assault rifles has nothing to do with saving lives. The gun ban lobby has taken on a life of its own as a culture war. Open war by liberal elite. We need to respond to appropriately.

    • Democrats: The Walking Dumb

      Agreed.

      Do not vote for Hillary, and any other idiot gun-hating politician.

      That’s a solid start.

  • Bryan Woodman

    If the att’y general can break the “chain of command” and just sign an “executive order” without going through the legislature and governor, I think all weapons manufacturers and repairers should break their contracts and refuse to sell and repair any weapons within the state — ESPECIALLY sales to/repairs from government and police agencies. Sucks to be a citizen (more like a serf) within the state of Mass-hole-chusetts, but maybe withdrawing all weapons sales and support within the state will wake up the citizen to take action. Such as the kind of action that can be taken with the “Politician Realignment Kit” (politician, rope, tall tree or lamppost, some assembly required).

    • Secundius

      Which Attorney General has Proxy Legal Status to Sign an Executive Order, either US Presidential or State Governor?

  • Thinker398

    So the AG has decided that he is allowed to rewrite laws all by himself. Yeah – that one can be beat in court.

  • It does happen at times. I stopped a Trooper who was in a bad way. I had his Major come out to the scene and we had a talk. He was fired the next day.
    That was the one and only time I stopped a LEO driving drunk and I can’t stand a drunk driver no matter who they are.

  • Ching Willy Hung

    Can a state AG do this without the legislature’s to written it into law and governor’s signature?