Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,470 posts)
13. The failure
Wed Jul 20, 2016, 06:01 PM
Jul 2016
"But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is."


Lacking specifics to the contrary, the terms "copy" and "duplicate" mean exactly what they say. That is, the form, fit and function of a device which matches exactly those named items in the law. I find it reprehensible that a attorney in a position of public trust decides that American companies, operating to as businesses often do, TO MAKE A PROFIT, are somehow breaking the law.

The AR-15 is about the most popular rifle in the US today. I quote directly from Wikipedia:
"On July 20th, 2016 Healey announced an unconstitutional directive, effective immediately, that would ban the sale or transfer of virtually every semi-automatic rifle inside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This was done with no vote, deliberation, passage of law, nor due process be re-interpreting an existing law which has been on the books for over 18 years."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maura_Healey

While I applaud a number of her accomplishments, this action is tyrannical and without any excuse.

There are canons for statutory interpretation. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others&quot
Items not on the list are impliedly assumed not to be covered by the statute or a contract term. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or "such as."
In determining the legal meaning of 'assault weapon' the list of attributes written in the law are those required. If certain particular models of an item are to be restricted by name then those names are operative as the list. The legislature could/can (as has been done elsewhere) identify specific models by specific manufactures and also list functional and form attributes to provide a clear and deterministic idea of any and all items to be covered by the restriction. Barring the legislature writing into the law a phrase such as: "Whatever Ms. Healey thinks is materially similar enough to what we defined as an assault weapon is also banned." this proclamation is just a posturing pile of dung.
Another Justice Stewart type case... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #1
"Hurry up ... and screw up" DonP Jul 2016 #2
Massachusetts is losing the battle of idiotic laws to California. pablo_marmol Jul 2016 #22
Their laws might be idiotic and have holes in them, but their AG is great for trying to fix them! scscholar Jul 2016 #26
Umm, nothing is being destroyed DonP Jul 2016 #27
That's why politicians have jobs shadowrider Jul 2016 #30
Indeed. pablo_marmol Jul 2016 #34
This message was self-deleted by its author pablo_marmol Jul 2016 #33
The MA AG isn't fixing a damn thing. pablo_marmol Jul 2016 #41
Well remember defining what you are regulating sarisataka Jul 2016 #3
"vague and overly broad" Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2016 #4
So... krispos42 Jul 2016 #5
"Somebody want to tell the GCRA crowd?" Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2016 #6
That quote indicates it is ALL about culture war. nt Eleanors38 Jul 2016 #7
er, what you just said is the exact opposite of what the AG said. Try to keep up. Schema Thing Jul 2016 #8
Um that is exactly sarisataka Jul 2016 #12
Actually, it is what she said. Straw Man Jul 2016 #36
Yes I saw that Duckhunter935 Jul 2016 #17
Who is sending this directive? Hangingon Jul 2016 #9
The piece was written by the AG and published through the Globe (and elsewhere, I presume). Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2016 #11
Thx! I should have read closer. Hangingon Jul 2016 #16
If this is true... beevul Jul 2016 #10
Yup, the 1994 Federal AWB did *not* ban AR and AK variants that passed the features test. benEzra Jul 2016 #28
Well said, Ben. beevul Jul 2016 #31
It is a shame that 'knowing what one is doing" isn't a political criteria discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #38
The failure discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #13
I don't know why but discussions of legal concepts always fascinates me. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2016 #14
I'm grateful that that is so and quite sorry so few pro-control folks share your fascination discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #18
Your new rifle has a #4-40 screw holding the cover plate to the grip GreydeeThos Jul 2016 #15
The AG of this state TeddyR Jul 2016 #19
Basically the '94 ban... jmg257 Jul 2016 #20
Thanks TeddyR Jul 2016 #21
I know after reading NY's 1st ban way back when, I was quite surprised so many "copies" jmg257 Jul 2016 #23
I grew up Catholic and got use to the idea that... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #24
Why, thank you! Couldn't have been a more benign post...just stats on increasing # of permits. jmg257 Jul 2016 #25
Like many other states, MA reported *zero* rifle homicides in 2014. benEzra Jul 2016 #29
Our AG is an idiot Jackieduda Jul 2016 #32
It will certainly be challenged. Straw Man Jul 2016 #35
Making up new criteria out of thin air... beevul Jul 2016 #43
Here's the actual "Enforcement Notice" jmg257 Jul 2016 #37
Semi auto deer rifles? DashOneBravo Jul 2016 #39
"Internal functioning components". Nt jmg257 Jul 2016 #40
Not that part DashOneBravo Jul 2016 #44
Great timing. pablo_marmol Jul 2016 #42
In the interest of... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2016 #45
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The loophole in the Mass....»Reply #13