is one of hazy definitions as to what constitutes the weapon type; when is a gun a "black gun" (another puff of fog) illegal while other semi-auto rifles are not? This may be why Dan Baum declares the modular AR-15 "the gun Congress can't ban." It is a shape-shifter, and the courts don't like laws are fiddled with like color hues and contrast on a late 50s color T.V. set.

On "reinterpreting" definitions (tuning the T.V.?), this is clearly a 5th Amendment frat house blow out (a prospect of little concern to extremist banners), since gun sellers have come to rely on the strictures set by the legislature so as not to run afoul of the law; to traipse in later, like the A.G.has, is to subvert not only the letter of the law, but to mock also the entire basis of law-making. And gun sellers have no recourse but to sue in an attempt to REGAIN due process. Monetary damages should result from this attempt to legislate by one-person fiat.

Incidentally, Ms. Healey is still all in for keeping marijuana use a criminal act. No surprise.

EDIT: "...law 'redefined copycats'..." Heh, heh. I saw that.

Not just gun sellers but any person or company engaged in business. To engage in good faith compliance with a law only to have a person with no law-making power to unilaterally declare that business to be illegal is a thing that cannot be allowed to stand.

In an honest and truly liberal society, this is what one should reasonably expect.

No one ever lost any $$ betting on the level of Controller dishonesty and hypocrisy, however.

As an RKBA supporter on this board once righteously observed, this is why we can't have good things like single-payer health coverage and good schools.

...rearticulate the Justice Potter Stewart idea of "I know it when I see it." I do applaud Justice Stewart's decision in that case as he found for the defendant position in that the work at issue was protected free speech. The differences here are, first that Ms Healey is not a judge and should not engaging in interpretation of the law and, second that it is her actions that serve to restrict rather than protect actions previously permitted under the law.

"I know it when I see it." is the biggest and lamest cop out around. Not only does it smack of capricious enforcement but highlights the degree of lame incompetence possessed by, in this case, the AG. The history of successful judicial challenges naming 2A rights has mostly been a rejection of laws which offend the Constitution and, especially, the Bill of Rights. In this case the suit is over the whim of an executive in the enforcement of a law.

In going a step beyond the writing of some of these laws which Miller and MacDonald crushed, the AG's announcement moves on from "I know it when I see it" to "It is what I say it is."

This announcement has made news nationwide as has the suit I mentioned in the OP. In my opinion, this action will undermine the imminent Senate elections. The Senate elections feature 11 Senate seats without clear incumbent party majority support and 10 of those are currently held by Republicans.

AG Healey is gambling a possible Senate majority for personal publicity. Anyone with any sense sees where this case is going.

Aren't Senators the ones who confirm SCOTUS nominees? Pro-control isn't about some innately Democratic ideal. It's about self-serving politicians.

so luridly written through our history, a form of governance based on the vulgarity of seeing. Where one cannot see, then stereotypes make us see what the prohibitionist wants us to see.

As a lawyer with that much experience, she should certainly know better.