Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The loophole in the Mass. assault weapons ban
The following is a press release from the Attorney General of Massachusetts --
The loophole in the Mass. assault weapons ban
....
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.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/20/the-loophole-mass-assault-weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html
....
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.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/07/20/the-loophole-mass-assault-weapons-ban/eEvOBklTriWcGznmXqSpYM/story.html
Seems overly broad and will end up including weapons well outside the scope of the law. Moreover, it was decided by the AG's office, not the legislature. As such it seems ripe for judicial challenge.
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."
The opinion of a skull and bones Republican infects another area of law.
IMHO it is impossible to object too strenuously to measures articulated in this manner. 
Bravo for your OP and thanks. 
Can't have that!
"But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is."
Lacking specifics to the contrary, the terms "copy" and "duplicate" mean exactly what they say. That is, the form, fit and function of a device which matches exactly those named items in the law. I find it reprehensible that a attorney in a position of public trust decides that American companies, operating to as businesses often do, TO MAKE A PROFIT, are somehow breaking the law.
The AR-15 is about the most popular rifle in the US today. I quote directly from Wikipedia:
"On July 20th, 2016 Healey announced an unconstitutional directive, effective immediately, that would ban the sale or transfer of virtually every semi-automatic rifle inside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This was done with no vote, deliberation, passage of law, nor due process be re-interpreting an existing law which has been on the books for over 18 years."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maura_Healey
While I applaud a number of her accomplishments, this action is tyrannical and without any excuse.
There are canons for statutory interpretation. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others"
Items not on the list are impliedly assumed not to be covered by the statute or a contract term. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or "such as."
In determining the legal meaning of 'assault weapon' the list of attributes written in the law are those required. If certain particular models of an item are to be restricted by name then those names are operative as the list. The legislature could/can (as has been done elsewhere) identify specific models by specific manufactures and also list functional and form attributes to provide a clear and deterministic idea of any and all items to be covered by the restriction. Barring the legislature writing into the law a phrase such as: "Whatever Ms. Healey thinks is materially similar enough to what we defined as an assault weapon is also banned." this proclamation is just a posturing pile of dung.
This #4-40 screw is interchangeable with a screw on that other prohibited weapon, therefore your new rifle is also prohibited.
[/font]
[/font]
[/font]
...certain "bans" didn't really have logic behind them. The world seems replete with instances of "It doesn't need to make sense, it's just a rule."
BTW welcome to the Whine Cellar blocked list. 
Ah well- sheltered folks need their safe-spaces, I guess!