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