"They're Not Going to Take your Guns".: Massachusett's Rogue Attorney General Just Did.

She has all the arrogance and chutzpah of Hillary. Nothing like ruling by executive fiat. What kind of idiot attorney general thinks they can write laws?

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Probably the same one who would re-write history if their side wins!

Seems like a career ending move to me

a reply to: METACOMET

I live in MA and can tell you there are A LOT of unhappy people.

a reply to: charolais

I have never met a happy person from Massachusetts anywhere.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: charolais

I have never met a happy person from Massachusetts anywhere.

There's a lot of truth in this statement.

a reply to: METACOMET

This case certainly makes the presidential elections all that more important, considering the next POTUS will seat 2-4 new SCOTUS justices, doesn't it? You know this will reach the Supreme Court and my gosh does it ever behoove all 2nd amendment supporters to support the individual who is most likely to seat pro-2nd justices before that case is heard!

Meanwhile in Munich...

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
She has all the arrogance and chutzpah of Hillary. Nothing like ruling by executive fiat. What kind of idiot attorney general thinks they can write laws?

the attorney general didn't write any laws, nor can she, nor did she think she could, it was a recommendation......

This really could be broad. If they say anything with a gas piston or a gas impingement system, because they operate essentially the same on "assault weapons", this could start essentially banning your dads old hunting rifle. If they start looking at shotguns the same way, and i'm sure they will, and just on the part sharing aspect could ban a huge amount of a company like Benelli's (and the companies they import, like Franchi) because they share a number of functioning parts between some Military/L.E. firearms. That's just one company. Like any industry, the more parts you can use in a number of models, the cheaper the production. What if they just start looking at springs? Screws? This will encompass a LOT of hunting firearms at some point if they get their way.

Until the "people" who want to disarm the population experience firsthand what the 2nd Amendment is truly for, they will keep pushing and pushing and pushing.

I leave that to your own interpretation.

a reply to: METACOMET

Of course, most constitutional lawyers will not agree, but the U S Constitution was written primarily to restrict the actions of the federal government. However, all state laws are to be held in line with the Constitution also.

This is why states have much more latitude in enacting gun regulations than does Washington DC. They can therefore regulate, or abridge, to a finer degree. And yes, I know this has not been enacted into law as yet.

After some thought I have come to the conclusion that governments would be very taxed in their efforts to conviscate ALL the guns which are currently in the hands of the American citizenry.

For one, there is not enough information available to know who has which type of gun nor are there enough people working for the government to collect them all.
Also, think about how wide spread the materials are from which a gun could be made. Also, think about how many people know how to make a gun.

It would be necessary for all the material and all the makers to be either arrested before all guns could be eliminated. Even at that, it would not be long before guns would be back on the black market and back on the streets.

Such a thing might also spur the invention and development of "new types" of guns which the government could never gain control.

All this is why I think it would be simple folly for an actual "gun grab" to take place in the U S.

originally posted by: Snarl
Total intimidation tactic.

Somebody should bring the AG up on charges of high crimes and misdemeanors.

On the contrary, there is a lot of talk of her being Hillary's pick for US Attorney General. She's speaking at the convention, too. She is a super progressive lesbian and her wife is an appeals court judge, so she fits the narrative well. What doesn't fit the narrative is 5,000 gun owners showing up to the state house with less than 48 hours notice to protest this gun grab.

How many of you heard about it this from the media coverage? Crickets.

For all who think this is relegated to Massachusetts, wake up.

a reply to: Zimnydran

Well said.

a reply to: METACOMET

Laws outlawing firearms don't kill people, people kill people, laws are inanimate objects.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Pre 86 launchers maybe, but NO explosive ordinance is legal to own.
EVEN the newly made 40mm chalk rounds are illegal.
37 MM only and it is illegal to load one with anything but smoke,shot rounds,or a flare.
I qualed expert with a 203.
I wanted to find out how to find gold domes.

a reply to: tinymind

Sounds about right.

a reply to: METACOMET

Every single politician in this country needs to be removed from office. Why do we all keep putting up with this crap? Blatant and open corruption no matter where we look. The Founding Fathers would have revolted a LONG time ago.

We are pathetic.

...she is unilaterally changing the longstanding definition of so-called “Assault Weapons”.

Well most firearms have automatic actions (including pistols), and can be used as a weapon to assault someone.

So called assault weapons are all the weapons. In California they recently passed legislation requiring background checks on ammunition purchases.

Now all we need to do is unilaterally change the definition of ammunition to "assault ammunition". Then they can start unilaterally changing cartridge length, powder charge and bullet weight.

Until theres nothing left except Cartoon land shootouts.

a reply to: cavtrooper7


i think your mistaken,

In the United States, under the National Firearms Act of 1934, breech-loading firearms with a barrel diameter of greater than .50 inches and no practical sporting use are classified as Title II "destructive devices", with ownership heavily restricted and banned entirely in some states; in addition, each individual round of explosive ammunition for a grenade launcher is also classified as a destructive device and subject to the same restrictions

and from the ATF

Are grenade and rocket launcher attachments destructive devices?

Grenade and rocket launcher attachments for use on military type rifles generally do not come within the definition of destructive devices. However, the grenades and rockets used in these devices are generally within the definition.
Are grenade and rocket launcher attachments destructive devices?

then here is a search page that has pages and pages that say yes legal to own and you can get rounds but have to pay the stamp tax and have a class lll license.
is it legal to own a grenade launcher

here is on AR15.com a page that tells you where you can get what and what is legal. it is a bit dated 2008.

Comprehensive Grenade Launcher FAQ

and i've been told by my favorite gunsmith who has a ffl that yes you can.