ONE OF THE main rallying cries of the NRA and the gun lobby is that we don’t need any new gun laws to reduce gun violence. The gun lobbyists assert that we just need to enforce the laws already on the books.
That’s why rather than objecting, these groups should be applauding efforts by Attorney General Maura Healey to enforce current Massachusetts law when it comes to copycat assault weapons.
It’s no secret that Commonwealth law bans the sale of assault weapons and copies or duplicates of these guns. Nor is there any mystery about whether greater enforcement is needed, as more than 10,000 of these weapons were sold in Massachusetts last year due to a loophole exploited by gun manufacturers.
Earlier this summer Healey announced a moderate, commonsense measure to address this problem and stop irresponsible gun manufacturers from deliberately circumventing Massachusetts law. For too long these gun manufacturers have been making copycat versions of assault weapons and marketing them under the label “state compliant.” While they may lack a few features, they are for all intents and purposes – especially their deadliness – assault weapons.
Healey’s law enforcement initiative will go a long way in protecting Massachusetts children and families, while also respecting the rights of lawful Commonwealth gun owners. This much-needed step has already received widespread support from law enforcement, public health organizations, education and community groups, and a variety of elected officials and community leaders throughout Massachusetts.
Too many Americans – about 33,000 – lose their lives to gun violence each year, and hundreds more are injured each day. Increasingly, assault weapons are the guns of choice in mass shootings because they inflict the maximum amount of destruction in the shortest amount of time.
The carnage, horror, and grief produced by gun violence – and assault weapons in particular – is something nobody should have to experience. Unfortunately, there were more mass shootings than days last year – children and adults gunned down, families destroyed in minutes.
Many of the most horrific shootings over the past several years have been carried out with assault rifles, and we’ve come to know these tragic events by location: Orlando, Baton Rouge, South Carolina, Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech, to name just a few, and countless others that don’t make the news each day.
Even Massachusetts has not been immune to mass shootings. One of this state’s most deadly mass shootings happened back in 2000 in Wakefield, where a man shot and killed seven co-workers using an assault rifle and other guns.
By issuing this directive, Healey is doing her job and working to keep Massachusetts citizens safe. Sadly, her determination to simply enforce state law has made her the object of vicious personal insults by some vocal extremists. The verbal attacks have been disappointing and disturbing, and the main arguments voiced by opponents have no basis in fact.
To be clear, this measure is not a new law. The sale of copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts and has been for nearly two decades. This directive is simply an effort to enforce existing law before more Massachusetts residents lose their lives to preventable gun violence. Guns that possess virtually the same operating system or components as an assault weapon are assault weapons – no matter how hard gun manufacturers try to label or market them otherwise.
Just as important, Healey’s announcement respects the rights of responsible Commonwealth gun owners. Plus it exempts individuals who bought copycat assault weapons before the July directive.
Fortunately, the vast majority of Massachusetts residents understand that assault weapons have no place on our streets and parks — and certainly not in our restaurants, theaters, churches, and schools — where increasingly they are destroying too many American lives.
Our Commonwealth is a leader in commonsense gun control laws, a key reason why gun fatalities in our state are among the lowest in the nation. We understand that these laws save lives, and that’s why proper, sensible law enforcement is so critical. While no single law will prevent every act of violence, the decision to do nothing certainly costs the lives of children, women, and men.
Janet Goldenberg and Sheila Decter are members of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, which represents more than 30 Massachusetts organizations, civic and religious, urban and suburban, including the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization and the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action.
CommonWealth Voices is sponsored by The Boston Foundation.
The Boston Foundation is deeply committed to civic leadership, and essential to our work is the exchange of informed opinions. We are proud to partner on a platform that engages such a broad range of demographic and ideological viewpoints.
What is an operating system? What firearms are legal? Are Tavors legal? Are we all felons?
If the AGs actions are in keeping with the states target the states target is garbage.
“Plus it exempts individuals who bought copycat assault weapons before the July directive.”
This is a lie. It does NOTHING to protect gun owners from criminal prosecution. After all they reserve the right to change this guidance without notice.
” Guns that possess virtually the same operating system or components as an assault weapon are assault weapons”
WHAT IS AN OPERATING SYSTEM?
“Guns that possess virtually the same operating system or components as an assault weapon are assault weapons…”
That is the most stupid statement I have heard on the topic because using that justification ALL guns could be so-called “assault weapons”. Goes to prove how little people that back these bans really understand about firearms.
The authors of this piece reveal themselves to be anti-rights bigots, willing to spin anything to achieve their goal of banning guns.
They called Healy’s actions….”moderate.” That’s all you need to know about them.
They should stop and remember than some of the largest gun manufacturers in the U.S. are based out of Massachusetts, and they could easily pull up stakes and move to TX or another gun friendly state. Has happened in several states already, costing that state both revenue and jobs.
A couple of everytownwhoores spewing lies and BS, typikal ignorant anti rights kommie trolls
“Many of the most horrific shootings over the past several years have been carried out with assault rifles, and we’ve come to know these tragic events by location: Orlando, Baton Rouge, South Carolina, Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech,”
FACT CHECK: So called “Assault rifles” were NOT used in Virginia or South Carolina, so why are they listed in this article stating ” carried out with assault rifles” ???????
The law is very specific with respect to what is banned. The AG is taking a page from the Obama playbook. If you don’t like the law reinterpret the law. Who needs the legislative branch?
The laws weren’t circumvented by manufacturers. The letter of the law was followed. Just one more example that any compromise made on guns becomes a loophole to be closed in the future.
This change will do nothing to lower gun violence in Massachusetts. There are other just as effective firearms a killer who wants to cause carnage can still legally purchase.
Using the correct definition of assault rifle (select fire), none of them were. The guns they banning now are effectively no different from a Ruger ranch rifle which is still legal to purchase.
“Too many Americans – about 33,000 – lose their lives to gun violence each year, and hundreds more are injured each day”
Intellectually dishonest. Lying by omission. 22 thousand of that 33 thousand are suicides and it’s been that way for decades. Rifles, which is what assault weapons are, are actually used in around 300 or so homicides each year according to the FBI. There are roughly 11k forearms homicides each year in this country.
“Guns that possess virtually the same operating system or components as an assault weapon are assault weapons – no matter how hard gun manufacturers try to label or market them otherwise.”
I beg to differ. This implies that these firearms are only useful for assault, which isn’t true int he least. They have many uses which include hunting, competition and home defense. Assault is an act, and a firearm has no will of it’s own. What a firearm is used for is up to the user. There is nothing magical about these firearms, nor does the auther mention the features that supposedly make them “assault weapons”.
“For too long these gun manufacturers have been making copycat versions
of assault weapons and marketing them under the label “state compliant.”
While they may lack a few features, they are for all intents and
purposes – especially their deadliness – assault weapons.”
I challenge the author to explain what features make these weapons so “deadly” or explain how they differ from other semi auto rifles on the market. I have a feeling I’ll be waiting a while.
Eeek! A barrel shroud! Ban it!!!!
Thank you to Attorney General Maura Healey for her courageous efforts to ensure the safety of children, women, and men in Massachusetts. Thanks to the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence including Ms. Goldenberg & Ms. Decter for their outstanding advocacy. And thanks to Commonwealth Magazine for publishing their powerful opinion piece.
Don’t buy into the gun control rhetoric!
Assault rifle: a rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use. A real thing!
Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud. NOT a real thing!
Nonsense. There is no right to assault weapons in the second amendment. Stop manufacturing rights. And stop being paranoid, imagining limiting types of guns amounts to banning all guns.
And so what? We should compromise our laws to kowtow to a manufacturer? We regulate industries all the time. Those who don’t like are laws are welcome to go elsewhere. Last I checked, our economy was doing fine.
Actually, the AG has every right to clarify the law. Otherwise, why was the NRA-MA affiliate, GOAL listing eliminating her power to do so as a legislative priority of 2016?
A) There is no such thing as an “assault weapon.)
B) The 2nd protects ARMS, which includes semi auto rifles.
C) Heller recognized the individual right as an inalienable right. Heller also points out that ALL arms, suitable for a militia, in common lawful use, are protected.
That includes ALL semi auto weaponry.
Your statement of “banning all guns” is telling.
Are you willing to accept a ban of SOME books? Will you accept a requirement that you be allowed to only visit approved sites or say approved things?
Try again.
Thanks to all of them for revealing the inherent cluelessness and stupidity in the gun control crowd.
not rewrite…the law, if you read it, provided a definition of what is an “assault weapon.” Too bad if she doesn’t like the definition. As to you question why? My guess is for this very reason….taking a play from Obama’s book and rewriting the law on the fly to suite her mood. Sorry, the AG prosecutes against the current law.
The law was fairly specific.
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher mount
Under the law these are both complaint guns.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/42904b8f81c28325b6afbb444e6d1970df2bd1c8940361c841bed1762f9030f3.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ad3703ce57a0258b3fb172fdcd01818284cc8078a0880a3d19799a73e05cdb74.jpg
Under the AG interpretation both became illegal.
Typo is amusing: “complaint.” The law is specific, but in addition there is also the authorization given to the AG, which GOAL (aka MA NRA) itself complains ‘conflicts’ with the law. She is within her rights even if you don’t like it. Since the NRA is taking it to court, let’s see which side wins here.
If you parse the sentence, the clauses don’t conflict. They state assault rifles were used in many mass murders. They also state mass murder names are becoming too memorable. Making nits out of grammar underscore your attempt to discredit the writers any way possible. It’d be better to have a debate on why anyone thinks we need military style weapons in civilian hands. As pointed out by Scalia in his 2008 Heller decision, the 2nd amendment doesn’t prohibit limiting types of guns.
Let’s see if the good people of MA follow CT and just tell their state foxtrot Yankee.
Because this is her rationale (her words from an Op Ed she did for the Boston Globe)
They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.
Note: the MA law specifically defines an “assault weapon” as a semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine with two or more of those features. Hence, she is ignoring the law – which is very specific – and redefining what an “assault weapon” is in contradiction of the law.
Her “guidance” basically bans all semi-automatic weapons with magazines. It’s amazing people so willfully give up their freedoms. I guess that’s why we call them sheeple
And the Fisrt Amendment makes no mention of any modern, digital method of communication. So, in the interest of preventing mass killings such as those in Boston, New York, Paris, Niece and other cities should it be OK for the national government to license all internet users and monitor all their communications?
It’s typical blurring of the data. Many countries around the world have higher suicide rates than ours and much lower firearms ownership rates (Japan, France, etc)
Exactly!
Actually, I do know about the Heller decision, written by Scalia in 2008. “(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not
unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in
any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state
analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on
longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and
the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in
sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws
imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in
common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of
prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.”
We have courts to interpret our laws. When citizens ignore what our courts say and insist on their own interpretation, we call that sedition.
Your argument about unlimited rights is nonsensical. I suggest you read Justice Souter’s Harvard commencement speech where he explains that all rights are limited when they conflict with other rights. Gun zealots seem to think the only rights are delineated in the bill of rights. I would point to the constitution which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When gun zealots want more dangerous guns for their hobby and that results in more mass killings, it can conflict with those essential rights.
No…that is not sedition.
That is called civil disobedience.
I said nothing about unlimited rights.
I’ve always said that rights are limited by other rights..
The right to keep and bear arms harms no one.
Shooting is controlled. Murder is illegal. Every shot must be accounted for.
Furthermore, nothing in the Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Declaration says that we have those rights.
Those rights must be defended.
The 2nd defends one of the enumerated rights.
You express your opinion and interpretation of the constitution. The nice thing about facts is that they are true whether you believe them or not. Civil disobedience is peacefully taking the consequences of violating unjust laws. There’s nothing peaceful about bringing weapons to a protest.
A) Unless the law states that you cannot, it is not civil disobedience.
B) Unless those weapons are brandished or used, it is peaceful.
Sedition is conduct or speech with the intent to rebel.
Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey a law.
Yet, by your own logic, the Supreme Court DOES tell us that weapons “in common use” are not subject to bans or restrictions. Do you know what the MOST popular rifle in the US is at this time?
I was transferred out of MA by my company. Many of my friends there said I got out while the getting was good.
Funny how every single us Supreme Court ruling that addresses or affects any law, requires said law to be properly identified in the ruling by proper title and numeric reference.
So please post the evidence from the heller summary by their proper title and numeric reference of all these gun control laws, all 20,000 plus laws you infer were ruled upon eh sweety…
Oh wait, that can’t happen as what Scalia defined was a DICTA, a legal opinion which has no authority of law, hence your inferred claim it does is a blatant lie, typikal
That and the laws weren’t ruled constitutional JAL
Of course you can prove that constitutionality of any law can be ruled upon and decided by only one US Supreme eh sweety, no, why is that…
You really aren’t very bright
You express you unsubstantiated fears and claims and you not being God, no one believes you
You should move to N Korea then komrade
Massachusetts has some severe fiscal solvency issues. You are now ranked 49th out of 50 states.
This state needs every tax dollar it can get and then some.
“On the basis of its fiscal solvency in five separate categories, Massachusetts ranks 49th among the US states and Puerto Rico for its fiscal health. On a cash basis, Massachusetts has between 0.39 and 1.12 times the cash needed to cover short-term liabilities. Revenues cover 96 percent of expenses, producing a deficit of $342 per capita. The state is reliant on debt financing, with a negative net asset ratio of −0.94 and long-term liability per capita of $6,237. Total liabilities exceed assets by 53 percent. Total debt is $26.73 billion. Unfunded pension liabilities are $94.45 billion on a guaranteed-to-be-paid basis, and other postemployment benefits (OPEB) add $15.38 billion.”
http://mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings/massachusetts
You say ” There is no right to assault weapons in the second amendment.” then you point out that “Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in
common use at the time”.
Anything you would call an “assault weapon” is in current use. Therefore, there is a right to them.
” When gun zealots want more dangerous guns for their hobby”
What “more dangerous” guns are you referring too?
FBI stats do not back up the activist Attorney General or the author of this one sided puff piece. The author digs back 16 years when a mentally ill man used one in MA. Is it common sense that he ISIS-inspired terror attack in Orlando would not have happened without the legal ability to buy a rifle? Would Omar Mateen be discouraged by only having a pistols and shotguns and not murder? ISIS terrorists had no trouble getting fully automatic AK-47s and bombs in strictly gun-controlled France. Mateen could have gotten the rifle illegally. 16 year olds have no trouble getting illegal guns in Boston, and kill a lot more.
For the 10 years this was a federal law, “ban compliant” firearms were sold throughout the country. No manufacturer lawyer and none of the HUNDREDS of other AGs, or ANY other Mass AG came up with her interpretation. Is she uniquely intelligent to have seen the err of all our ways? I sincerely doubt it.
And DID change the law. She claims a receiver (the serial numbered part) is itself an “assault weapon” under MA law a stripped frame/receiver IS NOT A FIREARM.
so it cannot be an AW.
Also, 10,000 of these firearms were sold last year, sound pretty popular, like something that is in common use. The supreme court has ruled that firearms in common use cannot be banned.
Also, the transfer of EVERY ONE of those 10,000 “assault weapons” was recorded AND APPROVED by the commonwealth. That’s how she knows the number, the state has the paperwork. The state also COLLECTED SALES TAX on the LEGAL SALES of all of those firearms.
She INVENTED those two tests, they exist nowhere in the law.
Overnight she turned 400,000 law abiding firearms owners into felons in waiting. She has changed her invented law several times via the FAQ on her website.
She is legislating by FAQ and threatening LAW ABIDING CITIZENS like me with 40 YEARS in prison.
She is a tyrant, she is hurting families in MA, and she did it for political gain. She’s going to say “see! I took on the gun lobby and this is what i did!” When she hasn’t done a goddamned thing to ensure REAL CRIMIALS serve their mandatory sentences for fireams related crimes (which more often than not get plead out)
Why is someone with THREE firearms charges walking the street in Brockton? Because she doesn’t care about stopping ACTUAL criminals.
She just wants a soundbite.
Free speech only applies to the Guttenberg press or quill & parchment. The founding fathers couldn’t have envisioned microphones, radio, tv, the internet, Rev. Jesse jackson, women….
Maura, a firearm’s operating system can fall into several categories:
Blowback, recoil operated, piston, direct impingement, manual bolt, pump, lever…..
The authors of this piece – members of a group opposed to firearms ownership – would have us believe that we “should be applauding efforts by Attorney General Maura Healey to enforce current Massachusetts law when it comes to copycat assault weapons.”
Let us review:
1. The criteria determining what is an “assault weapon” was set forth in Federal law in 1994. It remained law for a decade; from Maine to American Samoa. Everywhere, it was understood it, applied, and the gun makers complied. There were no prosecutions anywhere for purchasing or owning the compliant guns the AG has unilaterally now declared unlawful.
2. In 1998, Chapter 180 adopted the Federal definition and criteria verbatim, incorporating it into MA law. It further established a SEPARATE LICENSE, the LTC, which was required to possess any “large capacity” gun, INCLUDING long arms. The legislature clearly knew what an “assault weapon” was, defined both them and “large capacity feeding,” and expressly addressed those issues. It also specifically provided for the legal ownership of “large capacity” guns and mags, both “preban” and “postban,” including those guns defined as “assault weapons.” There were still no prosecutions for purchasing or owning the guns the AG has unilaterally now declared unlawful.
3. In 2005, Chapter 150 again addressed firearms ownership and licensing. It REENACTED the exact same definition of “assault weapon” verbatim, and kept the requirement of a separate license to possess any “large capacity” firearm. Again, there were no prosecutions for purchasing or owning the guns the AG has unilaterally now declared unlawful.
4. In 2014, after exhaustive “listening tours” and a protracted negotiations process, the legislature enacted Chapter 284. NO change was made to the well-settled, twice-enacted definition of “assault weapon” or the criteria which made a gun one. There still were no prosecutions for purchasing or owning the guns the AG has unilaterally now declared unlawful.
Note that three (3) prior Attorneys General all understood the law as written and thrice enacted; understood what was compliant with that law and what wasn’t; and none of them understood and applied that thrice-enacted and understood definition as AG Healey suddenly did in July.
The AG’s directive FLOUTS all of the above; IGNORES the clear intent, express language, and documented legislative history of one Federal statute and two state statutes defining “assault weapon.” It does so with NO consultation with, still less prior notice to, those directly affected; owners and dealers.
This is another AG power grab; pure and simple. It goes directly against the fundamental law. It was timed to occur during the Republican convention, a week before the Democratic Convention – at which she spoke – and to create an issue she could achieve higher office by promoting.
Note that all three of her predecessors tried to use “gun control” as part of their failed runs for Governor. That seems to the the one thing this AG has in common with those predecessors.
The Heller decision QUITE specifically struck down D.C.’s prohibition on handguns.
The McDonald decision applied Heller to the rest of the nation by striking down the nearly-identical Chicago ban.
The rest of us understand what was struck down. Why can’t you?
Better re-read your friendly fire sweety….
Far better you actually state a coherent thought and a valid point.
We’ll wait.
A coherent thought that I understand judical procedure of properly identifying laws modified by a ruling and you do not…..hmmm… quite indicative of minimal intellect on your part we see, breed not should you.
Oh and since you and justthelies are one and the same, youre still a fkkng liar
From mere inanity to obscenity-saturated babble.
Thanks for sharing your elevated discourse.
Your the fool that can’t comprehend you made a mistake… try again Elmer Fudd