"Healey said gun companies have been getting around the law by selling state-compliant “copycat versions of their assault weapons” with “small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon”.

Sounds like they need a differently written law.

Which she'll figure out as soon as Sig tweaks the MCX and sells it in Mass. because it ISN'T on the AW list in the original law and so would be legal.

They're getting around the law ... by complying with it.

That's what happens when you're in a big rush to pass a law for the optics and fund raising benefit of it, rather than an actual effect.

Maybe it's time to ignore the ones who can't or won't understand.

... and already moved on well into ridicule.

They are at best "keyboard kommandos", paper tigers, or choose your own descriptive and derogatory term. After over a decade on DU, and out in the real world, I haven't found any who ever actually do anything, just whine and bluster online.

Their "protests" generally number in low single digits. None of them actually supports the "GrabNutz" organizations they all claim they are behind with their own money. Just waitin' for Nanny Bloomberg to write the checks for them.

Their major safe haven here has 1 full time rude poster that has to reply to his own posts and maybe 2 or 3 bobblehead visitors, nodding mindlessly. One may slink over here once a month make an occasional post and run back to brag about how he told us off and shut us up. As if a "post and run" is some kind of major gun control victory?

Not too bright and not much of a threat to our rights, but ... still a good source of humor.

Is complying with a law "getting around the law."

I got around the law on my way home from work today. I'm sure somebody wanted me to drive at 40 mph but I followed those speed limit signs and did 55. I found the speed limit loophole.

...the ManiacJoe was suggesting that the original law being "reinterpreted" by the AG's decree was (at least in part) defective and that the blame for the defect(s) is attributable to the authors degree of unfamiliarity with the target of the legislation.

This a prime peeve of mine. There are numerous instances of folks campaigning for laws who have no understanding of the details involved in the implementation of their ideas. I'm mostly okay with the idea of "banning" certain activities such as murder, rape, robbery... However, I'm less friendly toward bans on individual objects and substances. Banning guns, drugs or email servers will be really difficult and, IMNSHO, pointless.

How can anyone be surprised that a manufacturer would read the law and then remove the features named as problems from their products? How can anyone think an AG has the authority to interpret the law? That's for the courts to decide.

Federal and state constitutions are written to regulate the various branches, to articulate their roles and authorities and to limit those authorities to protect the people. State and federal laws need to comply with those constitutions and be concise and deterministic.

Capricious decrees from over zealous executives need to go.

under Massachusetts law, in that they are neither banned by name, nor are *copies* or *duplicates* of guns banned by name, nor meet the features-list criteria used to define an "assault weapon". Instead, she unilaterally redefined "copies or duplicates of" to mean "somewhat similar to" or "shares a couple of parts with", contrary to 18 years of precedent, and turning hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts residents into criminals overnight.

Banning modern-looking rifles is particularly ludicrous because between 2007 and 2014, Massachusetts had 1,294 murders in the state. All rifles combined accounted for ]b]seven of them. That is fewer than one per year, on average, for all lever-action, bolt-action, pump-action, and autoloading rifles combined.

Tell me again how gun control fundamentalists "don't want to ban guns, just keep them out of the wrong hands." That's BS. Even the Brady Campaign is distancing themselves from this crap.

Certainly, with so many people supporting their version of gun control, they should have no problem matching or exceeding the S&W contributions, even without racist Bloomberg's money, right?