Worst part about laws like this is that the poison the well further. Liberals coming for yer guns should be a meme you laugh at, not a reality.
is anyone coming for anyone's gun?
or are some gun sales not allowed?
It's a little more than that.
It's banning an entire class of commonly held arms of a type that have existed for over 100 years (not the specific model AR15, this reinterpretation bans all semi automatic rifles including Pappy's M1 Guuuuurand).
Yeah, but there's still not a lot to indicate anyone is going to be coming to people's homes or businesses and taking their gun.
It certainly does seem like executive overreach. I would hope this gets overturned by the MA Supreme Court just about as soon as someone has standing. Any idea to what degree Federal Courts would be able to speak to this? It doesn't seem wildly more restrictive than what CA has done, and I don't believe interpretations of the MA Constitution(or whatever they call it) is within the perview of the federal courts.
California has been restricting semi auto rifles based on a total amount of features, similar to the federal 94 AWB, and not outright banned all semi auto long guns.
The Heller decision affirmed that an entire class of commonly held arms could not be outright banned, and McDonald incorporated the 2A against the states.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
It was also a way to highlight an example of was NSDFRand spent pages trying to explain about why gun owners don't feel like negotiating the limits of what they/I see as an extension of a natural right to self defense with people that openly show contempt for them.
Does that clear up why I mentioned bay area liberals?
But they openly show contempt towards other people for things that are verifiably false and part of the package of goods you get when you become an NRA member.
Obama's been "fittin to take our guns" for 7.5 years. It hasn't happened.
But they have a belief system based on the fact that it is.
It's difficult not have contempt towards people who seek to maintain their ownership of deadly weapons when their reasons are based entirely on fantasy.
Then it's pretty clear that very few people are interested in persuading and prefer to sit back and mock, which solidifies positions, rather than changing them. Isn't that the point of debate?
There's no debate to be had. The pro-gun side is EVERYTHING MUST STAY. And the most telling thing here is that even though most people would support more stringent background checks, they vote for people who do not and continue to vote for them. That tells me that while people would accept stricter background checks, most people on the pro-gun side really just don't care.
When you mention things that are verifiably false, I assume you're talking about, for example, the studies that Abbalah linked earlier in the thread? I and many others think that there are problems with how those studies are designed and find the conclusions suspect. That's not unreasonable, to point out apparent flaws or bias in the makeup of a study. I also think that the conclusions many posters here draw from those studies are overbroad in their desired application. It's a big reason why a lot of posters here wish the CDC could do studies
The NRA, gun lobby, and Republicans have blocked the CDC from doing these studies. You wish the CDC could do them, but then you also support the people who prevent them from doing it?
:rotate:
Obama and Hillary are on record stating they like or are interested in implementing Australian style gun control, which was a mandatory buy back, followed by confiscation and then if I remember correctly an extremely strict licensing structure. Dianne Feinstein, the author of the original AWB, is on record saying she'd love to take all the guns away. These are very direct statements about the persons desire to "take our guns".
And what legislation have they proposed that would do so?
The original restriction on funding for the CDC to conduct studies happened because the director of the CDC at the time (1980's) openly advocated a political agenda with regards to conducting future studies.
Yes, the NRA did say they did.
The simple fact is that the NRA doesn't want the CDC to do it, because the results will not be what they want. I.E, the study in 1993 that people still cite.
In 1996, Congress stripped away their funding with the Dickey Amendment. They continue to keep the money away and threaten to remove other funding if they dare cross the gun lobby and do a study.
Now, what does the 1980's director have to do with any of that?
My bad, it was 1990's leadership as well.
That still hasn't prevented the CDC from conducting studies (they published one in 2004-5 after the sunset of the AWB on the effects of the AWB).
Worst part about laws like this is that the poison the well further. Liberals coming for yer guns should be a meme you laugh at, not a reality.
is anyone coming for anyone's gun?
or are some gun sales not allowed?
It's a little more than that.
It's banning an entire class of commonly held arms of a type that have existed for over 100 years (not the specific model AR15, this reinterpretation bans all semi automatic rifles including Pappy's M1 Guuuuurand).
Yeah, but there's still not a lot to indicate anyone is going to be coming to people's homes or businesses and taking their gun.
It certainly does seem like executive overreach. I would hope this gets overturned by the MA Supreme Court just about as soon as someone has standing. Any idea to what degree Federal Courts would be able to speak to this? It doesn't seem wildly more restrictive than what CA has done, and I don't believe interpretations of the MA Constitution(or whatever they call it) is within the perview of the federal courts.
California has been restricting semi auto rifles based on a total amount of features, similar to the federal 94 AWB, and not outright banned all semi auto long guns.
The Heller decision affirmed that an entire class of commonly held arms could not be outright banned, and McDonald incorporated the 2A against the states.
Except, a new from scratch semi auto long gun would not be banned, because it shares no components with the enumerated banned guns. It would not have those features.
Worst part about laws like this is that the poison the well further. Liberals coming for yer guns should be a meme you laugh at, not a reality.
is anyone coming for anyone's gun?
or are some gun sales not allowed?
It's a little more than that.
It's banning an entire class of commonly held arms of a type that have existed for over 100 years (not the specific model AR15, this reinterpretation bans all semi automatic rifles including Pappy's M1 Guuuuurand).
Yeah, but there's still not a lot to indicate anyone is going to be coming to people's homes or businesses and taking their gun.
It certainly does seem like executive overreach. I would hope this gets overturned by the MA Supreme Court just about as soon as someone has standing. Any idea to what degree Federal Courts would be able to speak to this? It doesn't seem wildly more restrictive than what CA has done, and I don't believe interpretations of the MA Constitution(or whatever they call it) is within the perview of the federal courts.
California has been restricting semi auto rifles based on a total amount of features, similar to the federal 94 AWB, and not outright banned all semi auto long guns.
The Heller decision affirmed that an entire class of commonly held arms could not be outright banned, and McDonald incorporated the 2A against the states.
Except, a new from scratch semi auto long gun would not be banned, because it shares no components with the enumerated banned guns. It would not have those features.
Except the component of the action (roller delayed blowback, direct impingement, short/long stroke gas piston) that actually allows the firearm to function. At least from what I've seen, the action of the arm would be included in "features".
If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal.
At this point in time, the only person who truly knows that is and what is not banned is Maura Healey. Let me quote directly from the Q&A portion of her website: http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/awbe.html
Q: How am I supposed to know whether a gun is a “copy or duplicate” that is prohibited under state law?
* Gun dealers and gun manufacturers must use their knowledge and experience to assess which guns are substantially similar to a banned weapon and likely to meet one of the tests. The Attorney General expects voluntary compliance from gun dealers and manufacturers with respect to prohibited weapons.
Q: Is there a list of weapons that are banned under state law?
* No. The AGO will work with gun dealers, as necessary, to help them identify the guns that meet one or both of the tests of a copy or duplicate.
Posts
California has been restricting semi auto rifles based on a total amount of features, similar to the federal 94 AWB, and not outright banned all semi auto long guns.
The Heller decision affirmed that an entire class of commonly held arms could not be outright banned, and McDonald incorporated the 2A against the states.
Yes, Congress paid 10 million for it.
They arent paying for any right now.
Except, a new from scratch semi auto long gun would not be banned, because it shares no components with the enumerated banned guns. It would not have those features.
Except the component of the action (roller delayed blowback, direct impingement, short/long stroke gas piston) that actually allows the firearm to function. At least from what I've seen, the action of the arm would be included in "features".
Source
https://www.scribd.com/document/319388917/Gov-Charlie-Baker-Letter-to-Maura-Healey
At this point in time, the only person who truly knows that is and what is not banned is Maura Healey. Let me quote directly from the Q&A portion of her website: http://www.mass.gov/ago/public-safety/awbe.html