wanted to bump this question. I don't understand even if this proposal passes how this would hold up. If I understand the proposal, it would ban residents owning semi automatic rifles? In view of Heller, how could this be upheld if it were brought to court. And if I understand that the town wouldn't win a lawsuit, I would think the town attorney would advise not to go forward with this as it would just cost the town $$$. Or am I missing something?
It already has been brought to court in the Highland Park, IL case, which
the SCOTUS declined to hear (and which in part, gave the Lexington
****tards the inspiration/green light to proceed
with their ordinance).
Unless there's some other angle or approach that can be applied here
(as in a 4th amendment defense),
Heller/McDonald as it stands now isn't a legal argument.
With the Highland Park case (and I'm going to assume Lexington), there is no grandfathering/exemption of currently owned banned firearms.
If this is a new town bylaw, it would undergo
review by the attorney general.
MA does not have a preemption law... meaning local governments and
communities can enact firearms related public safety laws/ordinances
that are stricter than state law... the AG's office would give the
thumbs up to this without any hesitation.
That's what makes this a major concern.
The people behind this move know damn well that it won't make
Lexington any safer.
It's all about keeping the gun control issue in the news
(especially during an election year),
and a desire to be in the forefront and hope the idea catches on to other communities
(and it will).