Massachusetts Legal Attack: Sweeping Gun Ban Enacted

[barnbwt]

They see this, so now they're just jumping several steps closer to the end game rather than following the incremental, "death by a thousand cuts" process.

Maybe now gun owners will move to oppose the laws substantially, instead of complaining about having to figure out ban-compliant options (since there are no longer any for the most part, if you want a semi-auto)

Another avenue of attack would be to examine similarity to weapons on the exemptions list (I think a bunch of expensive BAR rifles like muck-mucks would own are on the list, as well as fancy shotguns) and force them to explain why a gun with the same configuration as a BAR (no scary features) but an AR's or AK's gas system is banned, whereas the fancy BAR gets a pass despite the 'assault' FNAR being out there, and has a short stroke gas system similar to the AUG.

I'm sure most judges would defer to the expert opinion of the AG...

I wonder how long before we just admit MA gun owners are out of options?

TCB

[Jim Watson]

Apparently the AG and her minions have cranked the non-legislated "similarity test" down to a "vague similarity test" by bureaucratic fiat.

[TDL]

Am I missing some detail or does this clearly make new sales of Ares SCR now illegal in Mass:

Interchangeability Test: A weapon is a Copy or Duplicate if it has a receiver that is the same as or interchangeable with the receiver of an Enumerated Weapon. A receiver will be treated as the same as or interchangeable with the receiver on an Enumerated Weapon if it includes or accepts two or more operating components that are the same as or interchangeable with those of an Enumerated Weapon. Such operating components may include, but are not limited to: 1) the trigger assembly; 2) the bolt carrier or bolt carrier group; 3) the charging handle; 4) the extractor or extractor assembly; or 5) the magazine port.

SCR lower seems to have 3, 4 and 5.

They are being written because the author thinks that is a "good first step" in gun banning and wants to set his audience up for the next ban. After all, if semi-auto rifles are too deadly to own, then why not semi-auto pistols? What makes 7 rounds or 10 rounds OK and 13 rounds too dangerous? It isn't a slippery slope - it is a near vertical wall greased with hog fat.

Precisely. And slippery slope and slippery slope fallacy are two different but often erroneously conflated things. 'Slippery slope" is often a valid argument and especially valid in constitutional law. It is amazing to me how educated people can say an argument is slippery slope and therefore inherently invalid when in fact they are just showing their own ignorance.

Moreover you are correct in identifying the clear and enunciated strategy of gun control groups -- incremental reduction of rights as steps in accomplishing overall bans.

And it is not hyperbolic to accuse gun control groups of a strategy towards bans. Can anyone even name a national gun control lobby or advocacy front that did not support any jurisdiction's alleged right to, on a 50.1% legislature and executive assent, put in place a full ban? Seems to me that through amicus, testimony or public support positions, every gun control lobby group of any profile supported DC's ability to do that in Heller, which was less than a decade ago

[BarryLee]

Sadly we really just sort of walked into this one. How many times have we argued that the AR is no more dangerous than a semi-auto hunting rifle? I remember when Sen. Cruz compared pictures of a semi-auto hunting rifle to an AR during a Senate Hearing and asked several “experts” why the handgrip made it more dangerous. They all reluctantly admitted that it did not. At the time it seemed we were scoring points, but maybe not.

[Spats McGee]

^^ Yes. I would even go so far as to say that this AG's actions demonstrate that our opponents do learn things from time to time.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by TDL

...does this clearly make new sales of Ares SCR now illegal in Mass... SCR lower seems to have 3, 4 and 5 [charging handle, extractor, magazine port].

In the absence of further clarification, it's certainly conceivable that #5 will be interpreted to mean any receiver that can accept a STANAG or Kalashnikov magazine.

Originally Posted by BarryLee

I remember when Sen. Cruz compared pictures of a semi-auto hunting rifle to an AR during a Senate Hearing and asked several “experts” why the handgrip made it more dangerous. They all reluctantly admitted that it did not. At the time it seemed we were scoring points, but maybe not.

I've long believed that features tests are actually a carefully constructed rhetorical trap. Pointing out that they're a sham effectively dares the opposition to take things up a notch. Or two. Or six.

Originally Posted by carguychris

The good news is that they HAVE taken it to the next level and shown their hand by openly calling for an effective ban on semi-auto rifles that accept detachable magazines. The idea now must be discussed on its merits.

You are correct. Sloppy wording on my part.

I should have written that the idea must be discussed without any pretense.

[44 AMP]

...asked several “experts” why the handgrip made it more dangerous. They all reluctantly admitted that it did not. At the time it seemed we were scoring points, but maybe not.

Oh, we were scoring points alright, but not for our team. IF we had been able to defeat the AWB law, prevent its passage, then the points would have been ours. We didn't.

Understand something about the way our political system works, when enough people get vocal enough about something, our politicians will make a law(s) about it. And those laws will be claimed to do something about the problem.

No matter what they actually do, or don't do. And, generally the loudest voices, not necessarily the most correct voices, will get their way.

When the AWB frenzy took hold, it was an inescapable fact that they were going to pass SOMETHING into law, to claim credit for fixing the problem. Their side was confident, and correct knowing they were going to be able to pass something, restricting guns in some way. They had enough political power (will of the people /loudest voices) to do it, and they knew it.

HOWEVER, they also knew that they DIDN'T have the backing to ban all the evil guns that they wanted to, simply because not enough people agreed with them that semi autos were evil guns. They knew that people simply would not agree with them if they tried to ban our semi duck guns and deer rifles.

SO they came up with the name "assault weapon", and since they had to exclude our "duck guns & deer rifles" or risk losing support, they created the list of "evil features" so they could define what was an evil assault weapon, and what was not.

We argued, the technically correct fact that the features they chose to define "evil" didn't DO anything to make the weapon any more evil than the (assumedly) "good" duck guns & deer rifles that they were allowing us to keep.

Our argument was essentially, that since these "evil" features didn't do anything to make the gun more lethal, etc., there was no valid justification for using them to define "evil". We were right. BUT, we lost. They got their law(s).

And with their law(s) the general acceptance that there were "evil" guns, that should be restricted/banned. Now, with a couple decades of "established law" and media propaganda behind them, to add the force of "correctness" and ethe "established way of doing things", to their cause, they are essentially saying that we were right, that the features on the list DON'T make the gun evil, it is the gun itself that is evil, and must be banned.

In short, they LIED then, to get their desired laws passed, and now are reversing that position (without admitting it), to be able to include more guns under the "politically acceptable to restrict / ban" umbrella. When the truth can be bent to serve their aims, they use it. When it doesn't they lie, and tell partial truths as fact in order to get what they want.

The one truth they refuse to use, or even allow in conversation, let alone accept, is the truth that there is only ONE thing that makes any gun "evil" and that is the person pulling the trigger. Every. Single. Time.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by carguychris

I've long believed that features tests are actually a carefully constructed rhetorical trap. Pointing out that they're a sham effectively dares the opposition to take things up a notch. Or two. Or six.

Possibly but I'm more inclined to think banning certain features, like handgrips or whatever, is just another tired piecemeal method to ban all guns. I think the anti-gun types will try and ban all guns no matter what so you might as well have some fun

[TDL]

Oh, we were scoring points alright, but not for our team. IF we had been able to defeat the AWB law, prevent its passage, then the points would have been ours. We didn't.

Respectfully I am going to disagree. There are profound deep sustained changes in public opinion in favor of allowing assault rifles. Take a look at the real trend:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics...apons_1216.png

Other trends on a virtually all metrics show second amendment supporters have been winning for 20 years.
- NRA approvals up from ~40 to ~58% (gallup 1990's and late 2015)
- support for full handgun bans running around 75% for democrats 10 years ago, and now at about 50% (Wash Post surveys of DC residents 2008, and late 2015)
-Gallup, Pew, CNN, ABC, WaPost, WSJ long term polling on support for additional substantive gun control (not background check issue) show decline in all long and mid term measures (35, 30, 25, 20, 15, 10, 5 year periods)
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/201...tergunlaws.png
- Gallup and Pew both independently show that Americans saying owning a gun makes the home safer from crime was about 35% 20 years ago and is 58% to 63% today:
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/201...guns_Safer.png

Really what is going on is political opportunism supported by massive inflow of money, "pay for play", by Bloomberg using a an incremental strategy where the NRA can't fight back. Bloomberg is giving huge amounts at state level in red states.

[TDL]

In the absence of further clarification, it's certainly conceivable that #5 will be interpreted to mean any receiver that can accept a STANAG or Kalashnikov magazine.

Effectively, the actual only result with SCR, this would be a purely cost raising to the buyer ruling by the AG of some models of firearm but not others that are functionally identical.

For example the difference between a Mini 14 ranch and SCR is purely cost of "feature" and "non-feature" accessories*. Shouldering, maintaining aim, fire rate, heavy or light barrel options, optics and sighting options, acquirable mag capacity, ease of changing mags are functionally identical, just in some cases with mini 14 more expensive, but SCR looks to be newly prohibited for new sales in Mass under this ruling/finding/regulatory law/advisory (whatever it is) and Mini-14 not.

[*The actual out of box groupings of SCR are better, but again for some money ,mini 14 can be tuned professionally and legally to be as accurate]

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by TDL

Effectively, the actual only result with SCR, this would be a purely cost raising to the buyer ruling by the AG of some models of firearm but not others that are functionally identical.

You lost me.

Is your main point that parts that won't interchange with those of a banned rifle are more expensive?

[TDL]

You lost me.

Is your main point that parts that won't interchange with those of a banned rifle are more expensive?

I'm sorry the language was a bi tortured.

What I am saying is ranch Mini 14 and SCR are identical in function. They are fixed stock, semi auto detachable magazine fed rifles. They are the same in posited lethality by feature. They both can have legal and in some jurisdictions not legal, further improvements. The difference is not in type of SCR legal and not legal parts or features, but their cost.

EG
Barrels: both have longer and shorter barrels available. Barrels with and without threads. Both have sub 16' barrels available and both depending on jurisdictions can have legal or illegal flash-suppressors, muzzle brakes etc. both can have a variety of twist, material and thickness of barrel as well. It is just that because of larger market, AR ones are cheaper.

On furniture/stock the Mini arguably is more lethal since the registered/controlled lower does not need to be changed, but a simple drop in polymer part needs to be added to achieve pistol grip below the action. Both are capable of forward pistol grip as well.

Both have mags in capacity of 30, Mini 14 ones are just more expensive (about 25%).


So my point is this regulatory pronouncement results in two equal firearms, that are only separated by price of improvements, and are seen as equal in all prior US gun law and makes one illegal and one not.

[kilimanjaro]

Looks like all that posturing about 'assault rifles' being military selective fire weapons and thusly not an appropriate term didn't work.

No one was listening. They might have listened to arguments about civil rights, freedom, etc., but too many folks were playing at semantics instead of defending their rights.

Now you've got an AG to recall or impeach, court cases to advance, and a lot of civic education to engage in.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by carguychris

Is your main point that parts that won't interchange with those of a banned rifle are more expensive?

IOW yes.

Originally Posted by kilimanjaro

Looks like all that posturing about 'assault rifles' being military selective fire weapons and thusly not an appropriate term didn't work.

No one was listening. They might have listened to arguments about civil rights, freedom, etc., but too many folks were playing at semantics instead of defending their rights.

+1, just like posturing about how silly it is to ban flash hiders, since the gun is equally lethal without one.

IMHO both lines of argument are correct in a purely technical sense, but soar over the heads of the folks in the pews rather than the choir loft.

[LogicMan]

Yes, telling how "assault weapons" are nonsense is a double-edged sword as then all a gun ban proponent need say is, "Then ban all semiautomatic guns that take detachable magazines!" To which a gun rights proponent needs to be prepared.

This law should be a direct violation of Heller, but there is no way to stop it. The Massachusetts supreme court won't strike it down (they upheld a ban on tasers) and the Supreme Court won't be able to do anything about it without a conservative replacement for Scalia. And Ginsburg recently said she'd love a case to reconsider and overturn the Heller decision.

[LogicMan]

Looks like all that posturing about 'assault rifles' being military selective fire weapons and thusly not an appropriate term didn't work.

No one was listening. They might have listened to arguments about civil rights, freedom, etc., but too many folks were playing at semantics instead of defending their rights.

I've gotten into some debates with gun rights people over this, who say, "A gun is just a tool meant to send a projectile downrange," the constant calling of AR-15s "Modern Sporting Rifles," etc...I have always maintained that we need to argue that AR'S are weapons of war and firearms are very much a tool designed for killing. That's the point. And that's the concept of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, i.e. that the people have the right to keep and bear the same basic weapons as professional soldiers, both for self-defense (which at it's core, as John Locke said, is also a form of warfare) and resistance to tyranny.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by LogicMan

The Massachusetts supreme court won't strike it down (they upheld a ban on tasers)...

Although I'm not terribly familiar with MA politics, I'd argue that there's one crucial difference that may be relevant here: the Taser case concerned the overall validity of the law in general, whereas AG Healey is changing the interpretation of a law, in a way that effectively reverses 2 decades of past interpretation, with no advance warning.

One thing that stood out when reading the Boston Globe link is that a number of presumably local commentators were quite upset at the unilateral and sudden nature of Healey's action even though they SUPPORT the idea of a more stringent AWB; IOW they are upset not because she's doing it, but because she's doing it the wrong way.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

LogicMan, that has been my position also. The euphemisms and the work arounds of technical descriptions of firearms have been noticed and discussed by gun banners.

They will go for the guns full bore and the MSR rhetoric, tool meme, bullet button, NY compliant ARs, etc. will be be seen as rather pathetic attempts to avoid or pander.

When the reports came out that the original AWB was useless, the anti folks saw this and drew the reasonable conclusions for their positions. Take them all down.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by LogicMan

. . . .I've gotten into some debates with gun rights people over this, who say, "A gun is just a tool meant to send a projectile downrange," the constant calling of AR-15s "Modern Sporting Rifles," etc...I have always maintained that we need to argue that AR'S are weapons of war and firearms are very much a tool designed for killing. That's the point. And that's the concept of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, i.e. that the people have the right to keep and bear the same basic weapons as professional soldiers, both for self-defense (which at it's core, as John Locke said, is also a form of warfare) and resistance to tyranny.

I've had that same debate. My (constitutional) issue with those who want to say that "guns are tools" is that the 2A doesn't protect a Right to Keep and Bear Tools.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Same argument who claim that being an instrument of 'sport' somehow makes these guns nice and protects them is some manner.

[rickyrick]

The 94 AWB and similar laws are really trial runs, the loopholes will get smaller in the future

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

When the reports came out that the original AWB was useless, the anti folks saw this and drew the reasonable conclusions for their positions. Take them all down.

Seeing as how the legislative language being tortured here was lifted directly from the 1994 federal ban, I'd argue that the anti gun folks had reached the "take them all" conclusion prior to the federal AWB.

They'll modify it and spin it to accomodate public opinion and get a foot in the door; but they are serious about banning. All that talk about how important background checks were after Newtown; but even after they exempted CHL's from the check, they still made them go to an FFL and fill out a 4473 in the proposed legislation. Tom Coburn's bill would have background checked every single sale in the U.S. - but it also would have made the 4473 irrelevant. So it didn't even get a vote.

As I've said a time or two, the leadership people behind these campaigns are not dealing in good faith and are not honorable. They'll say whatever they need to say to get their foot in the door and tomorrow they'll say something 180 degrees different to get their nose in as well.

[barnbwt]

Effectively, the actual only result with SCR, this would be a purely cost raising to the buyer ruling by the AG of some models of firearm but not others that are functionally identical.

Are you saying that people will start adding 'denial features' to make mechanically incompatible but functionally similar versions of parts to approximate the original operation in a legally accessible format? Ain't nobody got time for that (this is exactly how all those semi-auto conversions from full-auto parts kits, including AK47 and G3s, get built legally in this country)

All the law will do is spur a little industry of folks making oversized AR charging handles, right?

The problem is the law also covers similar operation and function. No way to get around that, I'm afraid. This is the hill to die on if there is one, fellows. So goes the AR15, so goes all firearms.

Yes, telling how "assault weapons" are nonsense is a double-edged sword as then all a gun ban proponent need say is, "Then ban all semiautomatic guns that take detachable magazines!" To which a gun rights proponent needs to be prepared.

Double-edged sword nothing; it simply forces them to craft their previous weak arguments into better ones. The AWB 1.0 was truly stupid; so much so it was insulting to even discuss. Even they don't deny this. So what could you expect them to do, but to retrace their steps, figure out what they really set out to accomplish, and actually bother to think about how best to achieve it this go around.

This is what we've been wanting on the pro-gun side all along, in my opinion. Force them into arguing that for "scary assault weapons" to be banned, ALL semi-autos must be banned --even the nice, woodstocked, blued, engraved heirloom masterpieces, like the presiding judge has in a glass case at home.

Hell, frame the debate so as to force them to argue that for machineguns to be banned, ALL guns must be banned & confiscated immediately --there's no way they could possibly win that argument in this reality, and it would for a good long while put to bed whatever incremental steps they'd wish to take in the interim otherwise.

We've folded our hand while the wagers were cheap and our stack high enough for a long, long time now (just under 100 years). We finally got mad after the 94AWB, and upped the ante when it expired by calling them fools & making clear our intention to make the banning of AR15s impossible. So they have now raised the stakes, claiming they will get away with banning practically all semi-autos in an entire state.

The real question is who holds a better argument in hand (please no Trump card jokes, the irony would be too much), who will flinch and fold before they are forced to show their hand, and are either/both of us ready with a derringer beneath the table should the opposing party fail to abide by the outcome & try to steal the pot?

TCB

[barnbwt]

My (constitutional) issue with those who want to say that "guns are tools" is that the 2A doesn't protect a Right to Keep and Bear Tools.

Eh, tools are intended for a purpose. The RKBA acknowledges both the importance of that purpose, and that firearms are crucial to working toward it.

Most folks who claim guns are household appliances (no different than the meat grinder that processes the animal just harvested) are simply evading the purpose of the RKBA, same as always.

TCB

[44 AMP]

Most folks who claim guns are household appliances (no different than the meat grinder that processes the animal just harvested) are simply evading the purpose of the RKBA, same as always.

The argument that guns are tools is factually correct. They absolutely ARE tools, in the broadest sense.

I think most people who use the "tools" argument, without mentioning the other purpose of our RKBA are simply looking for some kind of argument that undecided will actually listen to.

Once you get them THINKING, you can explain other aspects of the RKBA.

A problem with the Founders ideas about the RKBA is that being armed in order to be the militia, or to be able to resist a tyrannical government, is not that the ideas are wrong, but that many modern "educated" people consider the ideas as ridiculously outdated, and not relevant to modern life.

Anything that can be boiled down to "I have a right to a gun to fight the government" brands you as a wackjob of some degree to these people, and NOTHING else you say will be listened to.

I would also point out the Heller vs. DC case confirmed that our right to arms exists independent of the 2nd Amendment RKBA reasons.

It is also a matter of PROPERTY RIGHTS, meaning our right to own such property as we see fit. I believe that is covered under the "Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness" concepts. (I understand original drafts said "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Property).

We believe that restrictions on owning certain types of firearms are an infringement on our rights.

They believe that as long as we can own some kind of firearm (and they want them to be single shots, and only because they still have to allow us to own something) then our rights are not being violated.

The 2nd Amendment RKBA is a political right. We also have the natural right to own arms. They are not exactly the same, and BOTH apply.