(Massachusetts Attorney General Maura) Healey’s office continues attempt at re-writing law for MA Legislature via her “Enforcement Notice”. In the last 24 hours a new page has shown up on Attorney General Healey’s website, titled “Guns That Are Not Assault Weapons”.(INFORMATIONAL LINK FROM THE BOSTON GLOBE, which is all for an "Assault weapons ban ... if they could just figure out that an "Assault Weapon" is.)
8/19 Update: The Q&A page has been updated again today, and incredibly, adds to the confusion and worse, adds new “enforcements”. Here are the questions, just added. We now know that the AG’s office has limited knowledge of both firearms and MA law pertaining to them.
From the GLOBE article:
It’s no surprise the Orlando killer chose an AR-15 style assault rifle. It’s a weapon of war, originally created for combat, and designed to kill many people in a short amount of time with incredible accuracy. It’s in the same category as weapons chosen by killers in Newtown, Aurora, and San Bernardino. These are not weapons of self-defense. They are weapons used to commit mass murder. And they have no business being in civilian hands.So Boston finally clicked that the rifle used in Orlando wasn't actually an "AR-15", but it was an "AR-15 style assault rifle". Given that the AR-15 is the semi-automatic version of a rifle with a pitiful 5.56mm caliber bullet, and is not select fire (as is the M16) .. aka "Poodle Shooter", I suppose that it's perfectly reasonable that journalists who have never touched a firearm can reliably identify and define a "Weapon Used To Commit Mass Murder".
From OTHER MA websites: Laura says: "I have not only the authority, but the responsibility, to enforce the law."
Some call her one thing; some call her another. Some say she's turning legal firearms owners into "felons in waiting" because of what some may consider her imposition of "Ex Post Facto" laws:
So if I am, what are you?
I'm just guessing here ... call me crazy ... but I have a .22 caliber rifle with a scope. It's a semi-automatic tube-fed rifle, which holds 10 round in the tube.
Would it be ridiculous of me to think I own an "Assault Rifle"?
Yes, it would.
Is my .22 rifle a 'weapon of war'?
According to the Boston Globe ... yes, it is. And I'm a "Gun Nut", a Neanderthal blow-back, a villain and a potential mass murderer: all for wanting to pay $200 for an "Assault Rifle"!
Okay, I over-paid, but it has a nice 4x scope, was in as-new condition, and I gave all of my other .22 rifles away to my kids ... my "Arsenal" (the coat closet in my front room) had a gap which needed to be filled. Besides, I have two bricks of .22 LR ammo in my
(If there are any[Apologies for the digression, but you know I'm a gun owner and every time I start talking about GUNS and AMMO, I get this little tingle up my leg and ... uh ... you don't want to know. 'Kay?]huntersarsenal owners in this state who are more blood-thirsty than I. Which I doubt, because although I haven't gone hunting since my Father died in 1994, I'm still sitting on the arsenal in my ... well, you know. Coat closet.)
The Good News is that I don't live in Massachusetts (which state I can't even SPELL right!), because no matter what I do, no matter what I say, no matter what I own ... I'm wrong.
More than wrong.
I'm bad.
More than bad! (What's more than bad? I don't know, but if I own a firearm in Massachusetts, I'm really a horrible person. Because I still cleave to my guns and my
Okay, I'm done. And I hope you ignore that "Thrill Up My Leg" moment.
I only have it when I think about B.O.
Me and Chris Matthews. Y'know?
And yes, if you find this entire article to be "incomprehensible", you're not alone.
I don' understand it, either.
Welcome to Gun Control.
1 comment:
I look at states like Mass, and their government, and I wonder, how did these people win the War of Northern Aggression?
Post a Comment