It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Massachusetts to enforce longstanding assault weapons ban by closing loophole

page: 1
10

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I did a search here, and then a site search and couldn't find anyone on ATS talking about this- but it seems to be a topic I'm hearing about locally.
Perhaps it was covered here when the papers were signed, and I just missed it completely?

Today, it seems, is the last day to purchase certain firearms in Mass.

boston.com
wcvb.com

The laws in place already banned many weapons based on cosmetics, but now they're changing the wording to ban sales of even more firearms.

Who remembers the Hoax back in 2013 where a satirical article was posted about a gun confiscation going lethal down there?

Makes you wonder just how much longer it will be.... Today you can buy one, Tomorrow you can't. Soon they'll start taking them back, and eventually by force.




posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

I wouldn't expect anything less from that state.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

the AR-15 isn't even an "assault rifle". This is ludicrous.

*facepalm*



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

But does that mean if I mean to assault someone with my pencil they must now close the a loophole in a sharp stick ban?



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Want them? Come and get them.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Did they mention what day the accompanying FF mass shooting was planned for, or are they going to let it be a surprise?
edit on 20-7-2016 by MisterSpock because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
"Fewer than a quarter of guns used in crimes come from Massachusetts retail sales, he said. The rest are illegal...."

Doesn't really seem like a big issue then, frankly I'm shocked it's even that high. But then again, 5 percent, 10 percent, 1 percent, 3 percent, these are all numbers less than 25 percent. I mean, I wouldn't dare think a politician would intentionally use word play for their own agenda, not in the united states. So it's probably like 24.98 percent.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

Isnt it un constitutional to ban access to any firearm a US citizen can use? this law will be struck down.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: lordcomac

Isnt it un constitutional to ban access to any firearm a US citizen can use? this law will be struck down.



Yes it is "supposed" to be. If the constitution was followed as intended, just the mere action of a politician trying to pass a law like this would have gotten him jailed, or worse.
edit on 20-7-2016 by iTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-7-2016 by iTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

The appeal to emotion to ban certain "evil looking", black plastic firearms called assault rifles is a Trojan Horse. The ammunition is what penetrates police vests, as soon as they establish the ban on "assault" rifles and their ammunition, then they'll say well, all theses other "long rifles" penetrate police body armor, too.

There goes the bolt, lever, pump action hunting rifles of every calibre.

All to make us-- I mean them 'safer' of course.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

As I understand it, its not that they're actually changing the law, but rather that the state AG seems to be 'interpreting' their poorly written existing law in a manner such as to encompass more firearms than it technically applies to.

Read the 'Guidance' section

In any other state, I would expect a lawsuit challenging the AG's constitutional authority to broaden the legal definitions in this manner, but in Massachusetts, its probably pointless, because there's little doubt the legislature will support the AG's interpretation and write it into law if they need to.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac


Makes one wonder about the true depth of the effort to screw up constitutional rights when we consider the role Mass played in the thing. Wasn't that where the British tried to take powder store from the colonists, among other things? Yes indeed at Concord.......and now look.

Don't ever think otherwise and you will be ahead of the game...... that this Mass effort to be so anti gun isn't a key part of the larger subversion of the constitutions ect, ect, and ect. Don't look to Mass anymore if you ever did. Cant recall a state more ashamed of it heritage in the whole U.S.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I am against any ban on guns but I also understand they are trying to do anything they can to not have mass shootings in their state.

The AR platform is the ultimate 'army man' games from when we were kids.
It's just that certain people are not balanced enough to own any gun.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: lordcomac

Isnt it un constitutional to ban access to any firearm a US citizen can use? this law will be struck down.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that states can make their own gun laws. So really they can ban whatever they want.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: lordcomac

Isnt it un constitutional to ban access to any firearm a US citizen can use? this law will be struck down.


No, those details are up to each state. As well as the ability to conceal or open carry.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
I am against any ban on guns but I also understand they are trying to do anything they can to not have mass shootings in their state.




They are not really doing anything but going after the weapon.



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

I dont even know what shes saying.

They already have a ban on cosmetic features.

So now you cant own a semi automatic rifle?

Just wanna remind everyone, this is where the BOSTON TEA PARTY took place.

How far we've fallen...



a reply to: buster2010

The Supreme Joke also said that Black people werent human, that they were property.

Its called the Dred Scott Decision.

edit on 20-7-2016 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on Jul, 20 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: lordcomac

And yet the average gang shooting in boston is a result of handgun use that is easily conceled.



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: lordcomac

Isnt it un constitutional to ban access to any firearm a US citizen can use? this law will be struck down.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that states can make their own gun laws. So really they can ban whatever they want.


As long as it does not abridege the 2nd amendment sure.



posted on Jul, 21 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: lordcomac

Isnt it un constitutional to ban access to any firearm a US citizen can use? this law will be struck down.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that states can make their own gun laws. So really they can ban whatever they want.


As long as it does not abridege the 2nd amendment sure.


Well they missed that as they were slobbering all over the SC. In fact it is an issue that clearly does not begin and end with the state as it is written. And besides let the states do something they don't like and they will be all over the thing.



new topics

top topics



 
10

log in

join