I understand the concept of “Massprudence” and I get where a lot of you are coming from in terms of dealers letting pictures be taken, talking to press, etc.
A couple of years ago I’d be on the same page. But what is a right if we have to live in the shadows to exercise it? I understand that “Assault weapon” has a legal implication, but ideally we collectively pull our heads out of our asses and get the laws amended because flash hiders and bayonet lugs do not meaningfully change anything other than legal status wrt MA MGL. So yes, assault weapon is a dumb term, and yes, it has legal implications. The issue is that those legal implications need to be removed, not that we shouldn’t be open about being able to buy an “assault weapon”.
The fact is, we are behind enemy lines, but we do have federal, constitutional cover. We can choose to tiptoe through life using the doctrine of Massprudence, tight lipped and in the shadows. Or we can openly go about our lives and the chips will fall where they fall. If the judicial branch will not ultimately uphold our rights then I’d rather know that sooner than later. As far as I’m concerned this is a step in the right direction. Rip the bandaid off. Pray it ends with a favorable SCOTUS ruling and not a game of dodge ball with bullets.