Menino's Gun Buyback Bags an Assault Rifle

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

Well, not really.

In its third day, the new Boston gun buyback program has taken 100 working weapons off the street. The program started on Monday and continues through mid-July.

[snip]

Among the weapons police have collected: a Ruger .22 caliber assault rifle, .45 caliber semi-automatic, .40 caliber Sig Sauer, and a .9 mm Smith & Wesson. Many of the weapons were turned in by young men. A grandmother turned in two guns she found in her grandson’s room.

Only in a "progressive" paradise such as Boston could a Ruger 10/22 be considered an "assault rifle". Must have had a scaaaaaary black folding stock. I hear those things up the muzzle velocity by at least 200%.

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

And, of course, the .9mm Needlegun makes another appearance.

 

[Adam_MA]

Who said it was a 10/22?

Could have been a mini14

 

[Nashmack]

.9MM, is that a small flechette?

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

I was assuming they got the ".22 caliber" part right. I might have been a little generous there.

 

[firtree]

Damn, who sold the Sig for a $200 gift card!?

 

[jwilson]

Damn, who sold the Sig for a $200 gift card!?

yeah that was way to much for a Sig!!!

 

[Scrivener]

Who said it was a 10/22?

Could have been a mini14

And it STILL would not have been an assault rifle, for reasons already set forth on this forum at length and in detail.

 

[Twigg]

If it's in Boston, and shoots then it's an assualt weapon. Dumb*ss dimwits.

 

[KMaurer]

And it STILL would not have been an assault rifle, for reasons already set forth on this forum at length and in detail.

??? We all know that the old federal ban excluded the fixed-stock version of the Mini-14 from being ruled an "assault weapon", but a folding stock version certainly could have run a-foul of either the federal ban or the current MA ban. Surely you're not being so pedantic as to quibble over the use of the term "assault rifle" when everyone here knows that the media uses it interchangeably with "assault weapon", just as they confuse bullet with cartridge and magazine with clip.

Ken

 

[Scrivener]

??? We all know that the old federal ban excluded the fixed-stock version of the Mini-14 from being ruled an "assault weapon", but a folding stock version certainly could have run a-foul of either the federal ban or the current MA ban. Surely you're not being so pedantic as to quibble over the use of the term "assault rifle" when everyone here knows that the media uses it interchangeably with "assault weapon", just as they confuse bullet with cartridge and magazine with clip.

NO; as stated in the earlier posts referred to - and in which you participated, IIRC - I base the assertion on the complete and utter absence of ANY Ruger long arm from EITHER the "Large Capacity Firearm Roster" or the Assault Weapon Roster." Note also that the gun's owner could hardly "run a-foul" of the Federal law, as it expired two years ago.

IF it's not a "large capacity" gun, it CANNOT be an "assault weapon" unless and until it is so modified by after-market/after purchase alterations. Period.

It MAY be that this "Ruger .22" really isa Ruger Mini-14; i.e., .223 and not the far more likely 10/22; further. that it has been so modified.

It may also be that the reporter who wrote this article - including the drivel about a .9mm handgun - had his/her head so far up his/her ass as to require a snorkel simply to breathe.

Do the math and call the probabilities...........

 

[tele_mark]

NO

<SNIP>

It may also be that the reporter who wrote this article - including the drivel about a .9mm handgun - had his/her head so far up his/her ass as to require a snorkel simply to breathe.

Do the math and call the probabilities...........

 

[FPrice]

Surely you're not being so pedantic as to quibble over the use of the term "assault rifle" when everyone here knows that the media uses it interchangeably with "assault weapon", just as they confuse bullet with cartridge and magazine with clip.

Yeah, he's being pedantic.

 

[K-DUB]

FOX 25 News just ran a commercial with one of their anchormen & Mayor Meninyo encouraging people to "get guns off our streets; turn in your guns in the Boston Gun Buyback program".

 

[Cross-X]

If we offered grannies a lame $200 gift certificate for a Sig or a Mini-14, people would think we were amoral profiteers.

If Menino and his henchmen do it, they are heroes.

Go figure!

 

[Weerd Beard]

The best part about this whole thing is the average metro-Bostonian is so ignorant of firearms that the Globe can dress up this sow in a silk prom-dress and the people will line up around the block to kiss it!

Sad really

Arrrr

-Weer'd Beard

 

[KMaurer]

NO; as stated in the earlier posts referred to - and in which you participated, IIRC - I base the assertion on the complete and utter absence of ANY Ruger long arm from EITHER the "Large Capacity Firearm Roster" or the Assault Weapon Roster." Note also that the gun's owner could hardly "run a-foul" of the Federal law, as it expired two years ago.

IF it's not a "large capacity" gun, it CANNOT be an "assault weapon" unless and until it is so modified by after-market/after purchase alterations. Period.

It MAY be that this "Ruger .22" really isa Ruger Mini-14; i.e., .223 and not the far more likely 10/22; further. that it has been so modified.

It may also be that the reporter who wrote this article - including the drivel about a .9mm handgun - had his/her head so far up his/her ass as to require a snorkel simply to breathe.

Do the math and call the probabilities...........

Where to start?

While both the old federal AW ban and the current Massachusetts ban include a short list of firearms that are defined to be assault weapons per se, the vast majority of assault weapons fall under the definition on the basis of their function and accessories. There isn't now nor was there ever any such thing as an official "Assault Weapons Roster".

Also, I'm quite aware that the federal ban has sunsetted; that's why I spoke of violations of it in the past tense, ("could have run a-foul" in my post) rather than the present tense ("could hardly "run a-foul"" in your retort).

And, excuse me, but just WTF did "large capacity" gun come in from? Neither the old federal AW ban nor the Massachusetts AW ban makes any mention of large/high capacity in the definition of an assault weapon. As you state, no Ruger long arms appear on the official Massachusetts list of "large capacity" firearms, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not would be considered to be an "assault weapon" under the law.

As to the firearm in question actually "isa" (sic) Mini-14 or only a 10/22, please go and look at your post replying to Adam.

Who said it was a 10/22?

Could have been a mini14

to which you replied

And it STILL would not have been an assault rifle, for reasons already set forth on this forum at length and in detail.

As anyone can plainly read, your assertion was explicitly directed towards the Mini-14. While one might legitimately doubt whether the firearm was actually a Mini-14, your raising the 10/22 at this point is simply a red herring.



Ken

 

[FPrice]

Where to start?

Add to all this that the Assault Weapons Ban did not, I repeat not ban any assault weapons, but rather re-defined semi-automatic lookalikes in an effort to convince the Great American Public that these were automatic weapons of war.

So to argue over semantics and models is a bit of mental masturbation at best.

 

[Cross-X]

Frosty, I thought a smart guy like you would know enough to stay of this cow-pie pitching party.

Get out now while you still can!

Save your sanity, save your watch!

 

[FPrice]

Frosty, I thought a smart guy like you would know enough to stay of this cow-pie pitching party.

Get out now while you still can!

Save your sanity, save your watch!

Gol Durn it!

That's another 3 bucks in legal fees I owe you!

 

[Weerd Beard]

Gol Durn it!

That's another 3 bucks in legal fees I owe you!

Ha-Harrr

-Weer'd Beard "I love this effing place"

 

[Cross-X]

Gol Durn it!

That's another 3 bucks in legal fees I owe you!

No, no, no. Retirees get my services pro bono. Your lucky day -- again!

 

[Scrivener]

Where to start?

While both the old federal AW ban and the current Massachusetts ban include a short list of firearms that are defined to be assault weapons per se, the vast majority of assault weapons fall under the definition on the basis of their function and accessories. There isn't now nor was there ever any such thing as an official "Assault Weapons Roster".

The aforementioned c. 140 s. 121 expressly lists such firearms. Here it is:

G.L.c. 140, § 121. Firearms sales; definitions; antique firearms;

"Assault weapon", shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;. (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-1 1/9 and M-12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. § 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

Then there is the "Large Capacity Weapon Roster," which is a pre-requisite to even being eligible for consideration as an "assault weapon." Note the complete and utter absence of ANY Ruger long arm thereon.

And, excuse me, but just WTF did "large capacity" gun come in from? Neither the old federal AW ban nor the Massachusetts AW ban makes any mention of large/high capacity in the definition of an assault weapon. As you state, no Ruger long arms appear on the official Massachusetts list of "large capacity" firearms, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not would be considered to be an "assault weapon" under the law.

"No bearing?" Think again. Perhaps you are unsure what one of those is. Here's the definition:

"Large capacity weapon", any firearm, rifle or shotgun: (i) that is semiautomatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device; (ii) that is semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device; (iii) that employs a rotating cylinder capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition in a rifle or firearm and more than five shotgun shells in the case of a shotgun or firearm; or (iv) that is an assault weapon.

In order to qualify as an "assault weapon," the firearm must FIRST and foremost be a "large capacity" firearm. Then - and ONLY then - is the cosmetic criteria applicable; i.e., pistol grips, folding/collapsible stock, muzzle brake/flash hider, grenade launcher, bayonet lug. Hence the relevance.

While one might legitimately doubt whether the firearm was actually a Mini-14, your raising the 10/22 at this point is simply a red herring.

No, it's called being thorough. TWO possible explanations were raised; I addressed each. As the 10/22 was the original and most likely candidate advanced, it could hardly be left out of the analysis.

 

[Adam_MA]

WOW!
Look at the shit stew I threw onto the burner!
I'm pretty proud of myself!

Anyway.... I was listening to Michael Graham last night, and some guy called up. He said that he "talked a youngster out of" at .25 caliber pistol, and took it to one of the drop off locations. He said the officer looked at the gun every which way, and then asked him if it was a 38 special. Then he told the guy, that he couldn't accept the firearm because... Get this...

IT HAD NO SERIAL NUMBER!

The officer gave the gun back to the guy, and he left with it...

So, let me just clear this up... Someone, who maybe has changed their ways decides to turn in their old street gun (but only because the state government feels it necessary to BRIBE them with a gift card to do so). He/she takes it to the designated location, and they REFUSE to take the weapon, because (as is the case in probably MOST street guns) the serial number is missing.
WTF?

Does this make ANY sense to anyone here?

 

[dreppucci007]

Does this make ANY sense to anyone here?

Come on, Adam...The gun didn't have a serial number!

 

[rscalzo]

Many very old firearms did not have serial numbers.

 

[JonJ]

What's the easiest station to get to?

 

[KMaurer]

OK, let's try to make it simple enough that even Keith can see it.

Here's the exact text of the old federal AW definition:

18 USC 921 a(30)

The term “semiautomatic assault weapon” means—
(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as—
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70);
(iv) Colt AR–15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M–10, M–11, M–11/9, and M–12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii) INTRATEC TEC–9, TETETECCand TETECEC TEC
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;
(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—
(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of—
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.

Absomufkinglutely no mention of "large capacity" or anything vaguely related, except for a detachable magazine.

Then there's the text of the current Massachusetts AW definition:

MGL Chapter 140 Section 121

“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) AvtoAvtomatashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and GaliGalilii) BereBeretta0 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) FabrFabriqueional FN/FFN,FAL/LFN LAR FNC;FNCi) SWD SWD0, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12; (vi) SteySteyr; (vii) INTRINTRATEC-TECTEC-TEC and TEC-TEC and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

Now, there is that little qualification (vi & vii) excluding rifles and shotguns incapable of holding more than 5 rounds in the magazine. Perhaps this is the point at which Keith's indefatigable eagerness to tell other people what morons they are got the better of his legal judgment. Contrary to the literal text of the definition of a “large capacity weapon” as one that is "semiautomatic and capable of accepting, or readily modifiable to accept, any detachable large capacity feeding device" (i.e., any semiauto with a detachable magazine), the current interpretation appears to be limited to those that either (1) were originally sold with a large capacity magazine (i.e., the EOPS large capacity list) or (2) currently have a large capacity magazine sufficiently close to them. That narrowing of the definition was done under the authority granted EOPS by MGL Chapter 140 Section 131 3/4 to "compile and publish a roster of large capacity rifles, shotguns, firearms and feeding devices, all as defined in section 121, and such weapons referred to in clauses Eighteenth to Twenty-first, inclusive, of section 123." That string of references clearly does not include the definition of "assault weapons".

Perhaps of good attorney could convince a court that that the fact that EOPS has limited the meaning of the phrase "capable of accepting", as it applies to one part of the law over which it was explicitly delegated authority, implies that the same limitation should apply to other parts for which is was not delegated such authority. However, unless there's already some case law evidencing such a successful argument, if my attorney advised me that it would be perfectly legal to possess a post ban semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine, and a couple of other evil features (e.g., bayonet lug and flash hider), as long as he or she doesn't have a high cap magazine for it at the same time, I'd suggest that he try it himself first and let me know the results before I followed (or paid for) that advice.

Ken

 

[Scrivener]

OK, let's try to make it simple enough that even Keith can see it.

Meaning you need to have the dots connected for you - again. You managed to find 18 USC 921 - Definitions, but only quoted PART of it:

"(30) The term "semiautomatic assault weapon" means ..."

You missed - or chose to ignore - the definition IMMEDIATELY following:

(31) The term "large capacity ammunition feeding device"

(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

Two sections of the same statute dealing with the same subject for the same purpose must be read in conjunction. Note also that MGL c. 140, § 131M treats the gun and the magazine as equivalent. So much for your declaration that there is:

Absomufkinglutely no mention of "large capacity" or anything vaguely related, except for a detachable magazine.

There is nothing "vaguely related" about the two subsections. At least you admitted that

...the current interpretation appears to be limited to those that either (1) were originally sold with a large capacity magazine (i.e., the EOPS large capacity list) or (2) currently have a large capacity magazine sufficiently close to them. That narrowing of the definition was done under the authority granted EOPS by MGL Chapter 140 Section 131 3/4 to "compile and publish a roster of large capacity rifles, shotguns, firearms and feeding devices, all as defined in section 121, and such weapons referred to in clauses Eighteenth to Twenty-first, inclusive, of section 123."

Which brings us back to my original point; no "large capacity;" no basis for the "assault weapon" categorization. If it's not on the "LCW" roster AND has not been altered by aftermarket gizmos, it is not that mythical creature, the "semi-automatic assault weapon."

But feel free to continue your little rants; I know how much you enjoy them.

 

[Admin]