The article reports:
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.
I am having trouble understanding why the state wants to ban AR-15’s. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon. It is not an assault rifle. The AR does not stand for assault rifle as some people opposed to gun ownership would have you believe–it stands for “Armalite rifle, design 15.”
Yesterday The Conservative Tribune posted an article that further explains the problem with the Attorney General’s decision.
The article at The Conservative Tribune reports:
She (Maura Healey) ended her piece with the typical liberal huffing and puffing about “if Congress won’t act, we must” because of some “moral obligation” that we have heard far too often over the past seven years.
Furthermore, this woman revealed that she had no idea about the guns she seeks to ban. The rifles she spoke of are “state compliant,” meaning they fully comply with the state ban as it was written and passed and upheld in court. She doesn’t like that, so she is now moving the goalposts, so to speak.
Furthermore, her redefinition of “copy/duplicate” to include firearms that use the same operating system would seem to encompass far more than just the scary AR-15s and AK-47s she is fretting about, as the overwhelming majority of modern firearms, no matter what they look like, have pretty basic operating systems across the board (with some exceptions, of course).
This gun-grabbing attorney general has overstepped her bounds, and will hopefully be put back in her place real quick once the avalanche of lawsuits she has invited with her extra-legal actions begin rolling in.
See you in court, Ms. Healey.
Note to Ms. Healey–guns are not the problem. The terrorist in France used a truck. The terrorist at the French resort used a knife. Another terrorist used an axe. Guns are not the problem.
There are conflicting reports as to whether or not the Congressional Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 actually had any impact. People who want to commit crimes are not generally concerned about weapons that are banned and often have sources of weapons that are not interested in following the law. All a gun ban does is allow the percentage of the population that knows nothing about guns to feel safer (while being unable to defend themselves) and let the criminals know that they will be unlike to meet resistance when they commit their crimes.