"Guns that are not assault weapons"

[Drix]

Does anyone know when the wording was changed on the AGO site from:

"Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not assault weapons"

to:

"Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons? "

Just curious as this arbitrary change could have large ramifications for purchasers who bought arms with tacticool features on it after they were assured the gun was not an assault weapon, and now unknowingly possess one again.

 

[HuntMaine]

There are no assault weapons, only black killy guns

 

[DPR]

Plenty of other changes too. Even more reason to care less about what she says.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

None. Also, no such thing as "high capacity magazines"

 

[steve8140]

How many times has the state changed or updated its sites? No one knows. Like schools today slowly changing words and definitions and no one notices.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

The "Assault Weapons" ban was lifted in 2004 on the federal level. Some states, however left their "copycat" bans in place. The usual suspects. Jack.

 

[atmay]

Does anyone know when the wording was changed on the AGO site from:

"Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not assault weapons"

to:

"Are there examples or categories of weapons that are not copies or duplicates of Assault Weapons? "

Just curious as this arbitrary change could have large ramifications for purchasers who bought arms with tacticool features on it after they were assured the gun was not an assault weapon, and now unknowingly possess one again.

Probably sometime in July of 2016.

 

[MAGA99]

None. Also, no such thing as "high capacity magazines"

Not true!! Some 30 round magazines can hold 31 rounds!!! By definition, those are higher than advertised capacity!! (Good luck seating it with a closed bolt though!) I haven’t had any 40 rounders take more than 40, not have I got more than 60 in a drum, but I’ll keep trying!!

 

[Chevy 2 65]

high capacity magazine.

 

[Stryker]

I use high capacity clips myself

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I use high capacity clips myself

View attachment 274148

Where can I get that ..WOW

 

[one-eyed Jack]

Probably sometime in July of 2016.

Right. But none of that means shit because it's not written law. Jack.

 

[atmay]

Right. But none of that means shit because it's not written law. Jack.

Indeed not, until they start prosecuting for it.

Even if you win, what’s that going to cost?

 

[Drix]

Probably sometime in July of 2016.

I think it's way after that- like, even after the lawsuits were filed.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

Indeed not, until they start prosecuting for it.

Even if you win, what’s that going to cost?

They can only prosecute if you break a written law. I know, no one wants to be the test case, but it sucks. Jack.

 

[LuvDog]

Leave it to our AG... working hard to make the statistically most lawful group of people criminals... and the legalize all the criminals

 

[one-eyed Jack]

Leave it to our AG... working hard to make the statistically most lawful group of people criminals... and the legalize all the criminals

And only because she wants to get a job in Washington. Jack.

 

[Compooky]

Yay if that thing is still being edited. Can't say the original guidance was clear if edits are still being made over two years later.

 

[McReef]

Sometime between ‘Who gives a fvck’ and ‘Eat a bag o’ dicks’.

Screw that commie and all of her nonsense.

 

[Mesatchornug]

IIRC - someone put the page into archive.org back around the time the page was first posted, which would mean you can check its change history there. This assumes the URL hasn't changed

 

[DPR]

Indeed not, until they start prosecuting for it.

Even if you win, what’s that going to cost?

It would cost Healey something she is not willing to lose. And is probably why she hasn't pursued this nonsense further.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Right. But none of that means shit because it's not written law. Jack.

QFT

Indeed not, until they start prosecuting for it.

Even if you win, what’s that going to cost?

Who's "they"? AGs don't prosecute individuals, they leave that to DAs and I doubt that any DA wants to prosecute someone by citing a violation of a press conference/memo/FAQ! Sounds like a career ender if they did that.

They can only prosecute if you break a written law. I know, no one wants to be the test case, but it sucks. Jack.

Bingo! QFT

 

[atmay]

Who's "they"? AGs don't prosecute individuals, they leave that to DAs and I doubt that any DA wants to prosecute someone by citing a violation of a press conference/memo/FAQ! Sounds like a career ender if they did that.

No one would be charged with violating a press conference. That’s the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard.

What you would/could be charged with is violating the AWB, since in the state’s opinion (via the AG), possession of any post-94 AR15 pattern rifle is a violation of the law, as written.

Do you really think that a DA is going to lose their job by cracking down on gun crime, and filing charges based on their bosses interpretation of the law? Because I don’t.

 

[drgrant]

Just curious as this arbitrary change could have large ramifications for purchasers who bought arms with tacticool features on it after they were assured the gun was not an assault weapon, and now unknowingly possess one again.

Depends on whether or not you actually believe any of her bullshit is actual law or not. From a practical gun owner POV, I don't. Opinions vary.

-Mike

 

[Dennis in MA]

The "Assault Weapons" ban was lifted in 2004 on the federal level. Some states, however left their "copycat" bans in place. The usual suspects. Jack.

In 04, was there any other state that had an AWB like the Feds besides MA??? I think CA had one of their own design. I'm trying to think of other states but coming up dry.

 

[Len-2A Training]

No one would be charged with violating a press conference. That’s the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard.

What you would/could be charged with is violating the AWB, since in the state’s opinion (via the AG), possession of any post-94 AR15 pattern rifle is a violation of the law, as written.

Do you really think that a DA is going to lose their job by cracking down on gun crime, and filing charges based on their bosses interpretation of the law? Because I don’t.

DAs do NOT work for the AG. She has no (ZERO) authority over them. Her opinion is just that, an opinion . . . everyone has one. You are forgetting that tons of ATF Tech Branch Letters exist where technical experts determined what met that AWB and what didn't. A criminal case with any half-decent defense attorney (and I'd expect Amici from the former head of ATF Michael Sullivan to jump in) would shred her opinion in a heartbeat. That is why she keeps trying to kill the suits against her, no way she wants that day in court where the other side presents actual evidence that she's full of shit.

However, please feel free to hide all your ARs/AKs in fear of the devil. Others of us continue to shoot and enjoy them.

Depends on whether or not you actually believe any of her bullshit is actual law or not. From a practical gun owner POV, I don't. Opinions vary.

-Mike

I don't buy it either.

 

[atmay]

DAs do NOT work for the AG. She has no (ZERO) authority over them. Her opinion is just that, an opinion . . . everyone has one. You are forgetting that tons of ATF Tech Branch Letters exist where technical experts determined what met that AWB and what didn't. A criminal case with any half-decent defense attorney (and I'd expect Amici from the former head of ATF Michael Sullivan to jump in) would shred her opinion in a heartbeat. That is why she keeps trying to kill the suits against her, no way she wants that day in court where the other side presents actual evidence that she's full of shit.

However, please feel free to hide all your ARs/AKs in fear of the devil. Others of us continue to shoot and enjoy them.


I don't buy it either.

I never hid my rifles. I never even bothered complying with what was clearly the law. And I had no bones being very, very open about it. Brand new PMags, ban features on rifles built from lower receivers with post-ban dates engraved right on them, the works. Thanks for implying that I’m some sort of quivering pussy, though.


All I’m saying is, since it’s the state’s opinion that AR pattern rifles are illegal to possess, there is a danger of being arrested and charged for it.

As for your tech branch letters, those would make for a great defense strategy, but what the ATF says doesn’t actually affect MA law, and it sure as shit won’t stop charges from getting filed, if anyone so chooses.


And can you explain to me how all the state’s lawyers somehow don’t work for the state’s chief lawyer? I understand that there might not be a direct supervisory relationship there, but one of those people is still above the rest, within the same hierarchy.

 

[drgrant]

If someone was going to get prosecuted (strictly using her crap interpretation) it would have happened by now. I'd place money on it never happening before she leaves office. The only reason dealers down here are quivering and obeying her crap (and in a few cases, some still aren't) is because EOPS is playing rubby bums with the AGs office now and either agency can cause problems administratively for gun dealers in MA. Gun dealers are vulnerable to what I would call non judicial punishment. Gun owners are too (suitability) but thats a much different ballgame.

And the rest... well, in mass at least, DAs are elected officials, the AG can't exactly "fire" them or anything like that. The DAs are not subordinate to her and never have been. There's no benefit to them at all sucking up to her garbage.

-Mike

 

[atmay]

If someone was going to get prosecuted (strictly using her crap interpretation) it would have happened by now. I'd place money on it never happening before she leaves office. The only reason dealers down here are quivering and obeying her crap (and in a few cases, some still aren't) is because EOPS is playing rubby bums with the AGs office now and either agency can cause problems administratively for gun dealers in MA. Gun dealers are vulnerable to what I would call non judicial punishment. Gun owners are too (suitability) but thats a much different ballgame.

And the rest... well, in mass at least, DAs are elected officials, the AG can't exactly "fire" them or anything like that. The DAs are not subordinate to her and never have been. There's no benefit to them at all sucking up to her garbage.

-Mike

No benefit, but probably no detriment either. If the gun-owner vote mattered worth a damn in that state, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.


And yeah, I don’t disagree that it’s unlikely anyone will ever be charged for this, but there’s also a difference between someone refusing to comply, and refusing to admit that the state’s opinion on the laws meaning is what it is.

And to be perfectly honest, I can actually understand how the AG came to the conclusion that “copycat or duplicate of....Colt AR-15” covers AR15-pattern rifles in general. It’s not some huge leap of logic to get there.

Is it stupid? Of course it is. But when it comes to Massivetwoshits, what isn’t?

 

[drgrant]

No benefit, but probably no detriment either. If the gun-owner vote mattered worth a damn in that state, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

It is a detriment if they get an "L" based off a flimsy charge brought in court. Particularly when they can just charge the person with something else 999 out of 1000 times. They don't like being made sport of. So they're not going to put themselves in that position.

And yeah, I don’t disagree that it’s unlikely anyone will ever be charged for this, but there’s also a difference between someone refusing to comply, and refusing to admit that the state’s opinion on the laws meaning is what it is.

I just don't think the AGs opinion is binding because its clearly gutter trash. This isn't like when say, down in CT where the SFLU says "this is what the law
means" and people listen to it because their opinion is backed by facts and references within the law.

The AGs AWB bullshit here is basically concocted out of thin air. Even a lot of other anti state AGs don't quite go that far.

Her interpretation sucks so much I think even some MA judges would have difficulty
acknowledging it.

And to be perfectly honest, I can actually understand how the AG came to the conclusion that “copycat or duplicate of....Colt AR-15” covers AR15-pattern rifles in general. It’s not some huge leap of logic to get there.

Yeah but we all know the original fed and original MA AWBs were never that all-inclusive, and there's decades of interpretation that
supports the original, accepted "biblical" view of the MA AWB. Further, she didn't come to any conclusion... I doubt she or even her staff actually wrote the
thing. Someone hired by the cabal wrote it, (probably a lefty lawyer, or even a lawyer from shitberg's org) and handed it to her in a packet. Or they sent someone to the AGs office and they "invented" it on the spot. This has all the makings of a put-up job written all over it.

-Mike