Cape Ann Online

In good news...I'm pretty sure this happened in Maryland not long ago too.

"A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit on Friday challenging Massachusetts's ban on assault weapons.

U.S. District Judge William Young said in his ruling that the firearms and large magazines banned by the state in 1998 are “not within the scope of the personal right to ‘bear Arms’ under the Second Amendment.”"

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat ... eapons-ban

And no...we do not want concealed carry reciprocity here.  Should be pretty obvious why.  

Not really sure how the court system works with a case like this. Is there any chance of it reaching the Supreme Court?

I will vote for Bob Massie in the Dem primary for Mass Governor but Baker gets this (and some other things) right...

"Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) said in the aftermath of the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School  that he would support a federal ban on assault-style weapons. "  (from The Hill article previously posted)

gator wrote: Not really sure how the court system works with a case like this. Is there any chance of it reaching the Supreme Court?

gator...the Supreme Court declined hearing the Maryland case.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... c5e264dbaf

I'm less concerned about an assault weapon ban than I am about buying age, an overhaul of the background check system which can only be effective if reporting by states and other required entities (like the Air Force) actually do it, some kind of limit on the number of guns and amount of ammo that one person can legally purchase (how the hell did Stephan Paddock amass the arsenal that he did and, lest we forget, killed 57 people and wounded 400 - four hundred! - people.  57 killed, 400 wounded by one single person - let that sink in).

Riddle me this:  a student at U of Central Florida was reported as a "student of concern" by campus police.  A roommate had reported that he had altered his appearance and changed his behavior, became uncommunicative with others and not leaving his room, dying his hair blond, paying for a fast expensive car with cash, and referring to one of his guns as a "sniper rifle."  Campus Police notified ATF who reported back that the student had purchased an AR-15-style rifle and ammunition - legally.  After the student had been questioned by authorities, he purchased a second gun - legally.  So far, so good - everyone is doing the right thing.  However, the student has done nothing illegal - guns and ammo purchased legally, has made no threats, has no recorded history of mental illness.  What do you do about him?  Fortunately, some brilliant professional, somewhere, determined that he had recently not been attending classes and the Feds were able to bag him for not being in compliance with his student visa and he is in the process of being deported.  If he had not been bagged for that non-gun-related technicality, who knows what the outcome might have been.  I'm asking the question because I don't have an answer for this one.

Tine for Healy and Baker to be voted out

I think that is wildly unlikely.

Damon wrote: I think that is wildly unlikely.

yes but Healy really needs to go and get someone in that will overturn her decision 

Somebody in town put this in front of their house:

gator wrote: Not really sure how the court system works with a case like this. Is there any chance of it reaching the Supreme Court?

I hope so and that it
is overturned

Section 121 incorporates by reference the definition of “semiautomatic assault weapon” in the former federal assault weapons ban. This establishes that in Massachusetts weapons with the following characteristics are also within the definition of Assault weapon:²
18 U.S.C. section 921(a) (30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994:
B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—

1. a folding or telescoping stock;
2. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
3. a bayonet mount;
4. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
5. a grenade launcher;

So, to all the supporters of the AWB, do you see anything there that would prevent someone from walking into a school with a Massachusetts legal semi automatic rifle and shooting just as many people?

To those who think the AWB should be overturned,

why?

this is an entirely visual specification, other than the pistol grip, I see no functional parameters

while it might be annoying to not be able to purchase a weapon in the color of your choice, lots of things are annoying and yet not unconstitutional. You are no more or less safe because of it. Your ability to shoot 100 bad hombres is unrestricted

This is all a distraction

In my opinion, we are safer in Massachusetts than almost any other densely populated state because, in order of significance:

We are, on average better educated
We are on average, wealthier
We have, in general, a more professional, better trained police force
We have fewer guns in circulation, in that there are fewer people, in general, who wish to own firearms
We have meaningful and effective gun control, meaning we have enforced licensing and firearms education


To me, the goal is to create safer living conditions

When you create safer living conditions, in general, fewer people will desire to own firearms
When fewer people own firearms they are less likely to have accidents with them, have them stolen, or use them improperly
When fewer people own firearms, fewer stupid people own firearms

There will always be people who wish to own firearms, whether it is for hunting, target shooting, self defense, or cause they think they are pretty.

In general, there is no point in restricting these people from having firearms, they are not the problem

In general, they are rule oriented, and if given a set of rules that they do not feel is an ever increasing burden, they will follow those rules

You hit the nail on the head. The AWB accomplishes nothing except a false sense of security for people who know nothing about guns. The AR-15 is illegal to buy new as of now, but you can still walk into a store and buy a Ruger Mini 14, SKS or basically anything without a pistol grip, because we all know how dangerous pistol grips are!

gator wrote: You hit the nail on the head. The AWB accomplishes nothing except a false sense of security for people who know nothing about guns. The AR-15 is illegal to buy new as of now, but you can still walk into a store and buy a Ruger Mini 14, SKS or basically anything without a pistol grip, because we all know how dangerous pistol grips are!

I do not think it would do "nothing", gator - but as part of a greater (Massachusetts-like) degree of regulation and control on a national basis - the nation can and will likely (albeit slowly) become safer, at least from the threat of firearms violence. Intended or otherwise.

tyu12 wrote: Tine for Healy and Baker to be voted out

Time for tyu to stop trying to troll-tweak us all. It's getting boring.

I for one am willing to experiment with banning AR-15 and other military type arms and see if it does “nothing”.

sugarmagnolia wrote: I for one am willing to experiment with banning AR-15 and other military type arms and see if it does “nothing”.

We already had an experiment with the 10 year "Assault Weapon" ban and the impact on gun violence was minimal. Many studies came to the same conclusion that it had no measurable effect.

battlingignorance wrote:

gator wrote: You hit the nail on the head. The AWB accomplishes nothing except a false sense of security for people who know nothing about guns. The AR-15 is illegal to buy new as of now, but you can still walk into a store and buy a Ruger Mini 14, SKS or basically anything without a pistol grip, because we all know how dangerous pistol grips are!

I do not think it would do "nothing", gator - but as part of a greater (Massachusetts-like) degree of regulation and control on a national basis - the nation can and will likely (albeit slowly) become safer, at least from the threat of firearms violence. Intended or otherwise.

Maybe. Although, I don't see this becoming a national trend, except in the bluest of blue states.

The previous ban was not broad enough and wasn't in place long enough to be effective. 

I'm with sugar: let's try a REAL ban asnd see what happens. I'm all for having a ban that actually bans ALL weapons that can cause this kind of carnage (the previous ban most certainly did not), and keep it in place long enough to have an effect, and then draw conclusion. 

Frack the NRA and the pissants who parrot its talking points. No more fetishizing guns. I don't care how tiny your penis is - just go buy a muscle car for compensation.