Any Thoughts on This and Implications? Other States Could Follow?

[CalG]

Patrick Henry spoke as a radical fighting against the British after living under their yoke for decades. Very reasonable concern for founding fathers to be concerned about usurpation of civil power by military and repressive government. However after more than two hundred years without a single government that tried to tear up the constitution or bill of rights it seems that those temporal concerns were a tad over wrought. There has NEVER been an incident where civilians with guns out down a wayward US government and it is silly to continue to raise the specter of British troops or their equivalent depriving us of civil rights. We VOTE not shoot to maintain our freedoms.

Your innocence is showing brightly

Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Time to grow up! or at least check your facts

 

[BoylermanCT]

The MA AG over-stepped her authority, and her ruling will be overturned once challenged. This will take some time, so for now, the gun ban will stand. If you read the original law, it banned guns with very specific features. Adjustable stocks, flash suppressors etc. So manufacturers simply started making guns with fixed stocks and left off the flash suppressors. This is not a loop hole. The law was written by dozens of senators and representatives, 99% of whom are highly educated lawyers from Harvard, Yale and other top schools. To imply it was a loophole is to say these congressmen don't know what they are doing and that is simply not the case. If they had truly wanted to ban semi-automatic weapons like the AG is doing, they would have written that. The law could have been 1 paragraph long! Clearly it was not the intent to ban all semi automatic weapons, and now MA has an AG that wants to make a name for herself, and has decided that she can re-write laws and interpret them in a way clearly not contained in the original language. Hopefully the people of MA will impeach her for her gross abuse of power.

 

[CalG]

The MA AG over-stepped her authority, and her ruling will be overturned once challenged. This will take some time, so for now, the gun ban will stand. If you read the original law, it banned guns with very specific features. Adjustable stocks, flash suppressors etc. So manufacturers simply started making guns with fixed stocks and left off the flash suppressors. This is not a loop hole. The law was written by dozens of senators and representatives, 99% of whom are highly educated lawyers from Harvard, Yale and other top schools. To imply it was a loophole is to say these congressmen don't know what they are doing and that is simply not the case. If they had truly wanted to ban semi-automatic weapons like the AG is doing, they would have written that. The law could have been 1 paragraph long! Clearly it was not the intent to ban all semi automatic weapons, and now MA has an AG that wants to make a name for herself, and has decided that she can re-write laws and interpret them in a way clearly not contained in the original language. Hopefully the people of MA will impeach her for her gross abuse of power.

Well Written! concur!

 

[k0ua]

The MA AG over-stepped her authority, and her ruling will be overturned once challenged. This will take some time, so for now, the gun ban will stand. If you read the original law, it banned guns with very specific features. Adjustable stocks, flash suppressors etc. So manufacturers simply started making guns with fixed stocks and left off the flash suppressors. This is not a loop hole. The law was written by dozens of senators and representatives, 99% of whom are highly educated lawyers from Harvard, Yale and other top schools. To imply it was a loophole is to say these congressmen don't know what they are doing and that is simply not the case. If they had truly wanted to ban semi-automatic weapons like the AG is doing, they would have written that. The law could have been 1 paragraph long! Clearly it was not the intent to ban all semi automatic weapons, and now MA has an AG that wants to make a name for herself, and has decided that she can re-write laws and interpret them in a way clearly not contained in the original language. Hopefully the people of MA will impeach her for her gross abuse of power.

Excellent post.:thumbsup:

 

[k0ua]

Read the letter the Governor of Mass sent the AG: he can't figure out her BS ruling either.. She cannot arbitrarily make law with nonsense descriptions of firearms operating systems.

Baker administration raps AG’s gun crackdown - The Boston Globe

 

[BoylermanCT]

Last year in MA they sold 10,000 AR15 style rifles. On the day of the ban, they sold over 2,500!

 

[liberty2701]

I'm tending to agree with you on this point. There's some wishy/washy going on in here about states rights VS constitutional rights that seem to suite folks fine when the discussion is leaning in their favor. I.E.... The fed can't tell my state what to do, but I wish the fed would step in and tell your state what to do.

States have rights as long as they DO NOT violate the bill of rights as they are written. This is clear in the constitution. No wishy washy here.

 

[liberty2701]

I have no problem with an organization that represents hunters and sportsmen and gun owners. What I have difficulty with is an organization that manipulates congress to shut down epidemiologic research. Guns, like cars, can be dangerous and the public has a right to know what scientists and engineers, not just car companies and gun companies want us to know. We are twenty years behind in science of firearm epidemiology because of the NRA. If we had a National Car Association back in the 1960's we'd still be wearing lap belts and losing three times as many citizens per year to MVAs.

In 1977 a very conservative right wing cabal took control of an organization that previously worked to represent sportsmen and gun owners. What was previously an organization devoted to safety and sports became a very extreme political organization that managed even to turn off many long term NRA members. George HW Bush is hardly a liberal but he was disgusted and quit the NRA. The NRA is a politically radical one topic organization. Good for profits of gun manufacturers, dangerous to democracy.

What about all the other lobbying groups that "Bully" congress around. Lets start with all the enviromental ones that force the whole narrative on global warming or as they now call it climate change. They can not make up their mind since they refuse to accept the truth. The truth will set a blind man free. Open your eyes and you shall see.

 

[widefat]

I have no problem with an organization that represents hunters and sportsmen and gun owners. What I have difficulty with is an organization that manipulates congress to shut down epidemiologic research. Guns, like cars, can be dangerous and the public has a right to know what scientists and engineers, not just car companies and gun companies want us to know. We are twenty years behind in science of firearm epidemiology because of the NRA. If we had a National Car Association back in the 1960's we'd still be wearing lap belts and losing three times as many citizens per year to MVAs.

In 1977 a very conservative right wing cabal took control of an organization that previously worked to represent sportsmen and gun owners. What was previously an organization devoted to safety and sports became a very extreme political organization that managed even to turn off many long term NRA members. George HW Bush is hardly a liberal but he was disgusted and quit the NRA. The NRA is a politically radical one topic organization. Good for profits of gun manufacturers, dangerous to democracy.

The NRA does exactly what gun control groups like Mom's demand action and Everytown for Gun safety
do - it lobbies congress. How many times have you heard a gun control group propose voting out representatives that dont vote for gun control? It's the same darn thing, pot meet kettle.
It's not a danger to democracy - you just dont like it because the NRA protects gun owners from, well, people like you.

 

[TCJatko]

What crock of ****, if you don't commit suicide, are not a drug dealer, or a black criminal, your risk of gun violence is zero. As a matter of fact if you subtract just the suicides your risk of gun violence in USA is below the average worldwide. HS

Unless, of course, you fall victim to the"Religion of Peace".