Massachusetts Effectively Bans All Semi-Auto Weapons

Massachusetts Attorney General Bans Sales of All New “Assault Weapons” As of Today

Criminals in Massachusetts must be so bummed out that they can no longer buy their "assault rifles" legally.

The comments in that article are amazing. Gave me a good laugh, thanks.

Since when can the MA attorney general rewrite laws?

As the article states, AG does have the authority to define qualification for "assault weapons".

Maybe Smith & Wesson along with others should relocate their headquarters.

That's not going to stop those who want to use them...........silly posturing.

@bmanva: Your comment is so stupid I honestly feel dumber for reading it. I just love how pitiful today's youth are, how brainwashed the left wing media has you that you just blindly follow like good lemmings, yup second amendment screw it, hell let's just get rid of them all, worthless right?

Leave it up to the liberals to disarm law abiding citizens while essentially making them criminals.

I meant it sarcastically. Seriously, why would CRIMINALS be concerned about change in gun law or any law for that matter. DOJ's study found no evidence to suggest that assault weapon bans have any impact on reducing crime.

@bmanva: Oh thank god, my bad then and apologies. And yes I fully agree with that.

Shhh..listen.

I think I just heard the entire NRA pop a blood vessel.

And the froth from the mouth's of gun nuts might cause a increase in Rabies vaccinations

They should really do it with handguns.

What a joke.

Except SCOTUS has already ruled against it.

I can argue the Second Amendment either way but I'm not sure taking that right away is actually a good thing. And I don't see why anyone would celebrate that in all honestly. And no....I'm not a gun nut.

Considering criminals get the majority of illegally obtained firearms from corrupt dealers and straw purchases, this won't make it any easier for them to get them illegally either.

@bmanva: The DOJ said the effects of the ban were still on their infancy when the ban was lifted. It was to premature to say that it had any negative or positive impact. Gun violence had dropped during the time period but the DOJ couldn't attribute it to the ban.

The dude that shot up that club in Orlando was a law abiding citizen...until he wasn't. His guns were legally obtained. The Sandy Hook guns were owned legally. In fact, the majority of mass shootings are committed with legally owned firearms.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0

Where's your source?

Because facts are very much contrary. From 1994 to 2004, there was a similar ban nationwide in place. DOJ's own study found no evidence to support that such ban was effective in reducing criminals activities or their ability to procure weapons. Also very few crimes are actually committed with semi-auto rifles. And after 2004 when 94 AWB expired, gun crimes continued its declining trend instead of spiking as your hypothesis would dictate.

You conveniently left out the fact that gun violence continued to drop after the ban expired. DOJ had to justified it's own initiative, but the fact of the matter is study found no evidence that the ban was effective regardless of what they HOPE the ban will accomplish in the long term.

What kind of shitty logic is that? The 911 terrorists were law abiding residents until they weren't, so that justifies treating all Muslims like terrorists?

Also evidence that criminals don't procure their weapons from legal sources: Sources of guns to dangerous people: What we learn by asking them

Typical liberal hypocrisy: ok to rage when 1st amendment right or right to privacy are suppressed; not ok to rage when 2nd amendment right are suppressed.

What does that have to do with taking away firearms from law abiding citizens and then making them into criminals if they have one of these firearms, don't register (like in CT) them, etc.., Preventing criminals from having them? Sounds good. Treating the law abiding as criminals? Not good. These idiots ignore how many people are killed by handguns yet do not care about those arms yet seem like deer in headlights when it comes to these "assault" weapons.

Celebrate it?, It was merely a jokeful jab at the reactions.

Personally I don't really give a darn wether they want to stop selling certain guns or if they want to be able to put landmines in their yards so to prevent robbers before they reach the door, or the neighboors dog from taking a dump in their yard. I used to but it's not really worth the effort.

Americans and guns go hand in hand, infact I'd say guns is more of a religion to Americans then Christianity. If they want 30+ guns at home, risk the kids blowing off their head simply cause in their mind everybody is out to murder them or that the government is one legislation away from sending the national guard to a door to door purge, Then that doesn't affect my life.

Just means I won't go on vacation to the States anytime soon.

.. Incredibly silly.. The AR15 makes up a very small % of shooting deaths in the United States, handguns are the main culprits of deaths (both intentional and accidental).. To me this feels like a knee jerk reaction to mass shootings that are so rare, that you have a greater chance of getting struck by lightning a few times over than getting shot by a mass shooter..

If they want to end violence, stop the war on drugs.. End the jail for profit industry.. Make prison more about rehabilitation than punishment.. End the revolving door of felons, by creating work programs in which they can actually get a job when they get out.. Actually focus on the mental health problem through out the United States that is swept under the carpet except when it is used as a scape goat.. Gun deaths for instance are dwarfed by the suicide rate by a significant margin every year, even when you take gun related suicides out of the mix.. Revamp public services in poorer areas in which things like schools get the proper funding they need.... The US houses more inmates than China for crying out loud.. This kind of ban isn't going to do anything outside of political posturing on both sides.. And that is because neither side has any desire in actually focusing on the things I mentioned..

The Right wing makes boogiemen out of "big bad government" (in which their side has been pushing some of the most oppressive ideals justified by religious doctrine), while the Left makes boogiemen out of guns (while completely ignoring the far far higher things that claim more lives in the country by a wide margin).. They won't talk about these things I mentioned because they are bad for business.. Both sides get kick backs from the prison industry.. Both sides have put forward and support the industry whether it's from the Republican created War on Drugs or the Democrat created three strikes policy.. If anything the gun industry is applauding this move by Massachusetts because it is only going to create more hysteria in which people buy more guns.. While solving absolutely nothing for actual violent crimes on the other side..

The Gun industry couldn't have asked for a better president than President Obama, due to baseless fearmongering their gun sales have skyrocketed.

@bmanva: I wasn't arguing for or against gun control. I said, "Gun violence had dropped during the time period but the DOJ couldn't attribute it to the ban". Any argument using the DOJ study for or against gun control is wrong. The study was inconclusive.

Those were law abiding citizens and they used the guns they purchased legally, with background checks, to murder multiple people. People aren't born a criminal, they become criminals.

Having a firearm is not an automatic caveat for being a criminal unless you are dealing with the left who looks at firearm owners with a great deal of contempt.

Using just the two examples you mentioned, the Orlando guy was on the radar of the feds. I doubt you get their attention unless you are up to no good. The CT shooter received his firearms because his mother was a grade A jackass. People are killed at the hands of legally obtained and illegally obtained firearms but the left will go after law abiding individuals because criminals aren't going to listen to anyone or anything besides their motivations.

Not even going to bother going near this subject anymore... all I can say is, thank goodness I live where I live.

Wow are your panties in a twist. I said I could argue either position and then I said I don't think take that right away is a good thing. Maybe you should read posts before commenting....just saying.........

And since when does that stop conservative politicians when it comes to abortion? Why should it stop progressives with gun control?

I was referring to the person you quoted, not you. I guess I should have said "It's the typical liberal hypocrisy..".

I'm going to take a wild guess here: Massachusetts most likely has a low crime rate to begin with so banning assault weapons won't do anything in increasing or decreasing crime.

I'll keep it short and simple: Both liberals and conservatives need to get their heads out of their assholes and realize that there are many issues that need to be addressed in order to decrease the amount of crime.

Shitty analogy since no state has law explicitly banning abortion. You suggest DA should implement a similar ban on handgun which is the exact measure DC tried to place in DC vs Heller. Also it's a strawman, one which operates on the false presumption that anyone who is for gun right has to be pro-life (and checks all the marks for supporting conservative sides on all issues). I'm against any backdoor policies to circumvene constitutional protected rights (as defined by SCOTUS rulings), whether you are talking about gun right, gay marriages or women right to their own body.

Assault rifles were banned during clinton's presidency and extending into the bush years. Be curious to see if there was a reduction in mass shootings, shooting deaths, etc.

There wasn't, the bulk of gun deaths revolve around hand guns.. Mass shootings for instance are almost all predominately using handguns over anything else going back as far as 1982.

If only it was that easy, Massachusetts.

Ah, you mean me.

Well It ain't my 2nd Amendment., Besides I've explained a little up in this thread why the comment was made and how I honestly don't see any effort to care what Americans do regarding firearms.

Doesn't mean I won't make a joking jab every once in awhile.

I'm confused why does your average person need a rifle when a handgun, martial arts lessons or a taser will do. Also can't you just rent these sort of guns on hunting trips

Gun nuts, gun nuts everywhere in this country! I'm not necessarily for banning them, I think it's too late because there are more guns than people in this country at this point. It's in the constitution, even if what we got today is not what the founding fathers would have ever imagined, it's still in there and would have to be changed if we were to even attempt to eradicate them. It's not the guns it's the people. And what is up with this gun religion and obsession we have? It's beyond crazy. Is America too far gone? God, I hope not.

Arms are in essence most base representation of power without pretense of civility. Without any actual power, none of your liberties are actually rights just privileges afforded to you by your government to be taken away at a moments notice. You're like the farm pigs that pity the hard strife of wild ones outside the farm not realizing the you're the ones deserving pity, living moment to moment simply and only at the mercy of those whom you consider your caretakers but are in truth your masters. Laugh while you can, ultimately the joke is on you.

Why does your average person NEED alcohol or cigarette or car or pool or fast food. Each of those things have killed more people annually than rifles. If you are going to legislate safety for the sole purpose of saving lives then it makes sense to start with those. And even if the answer is they don't need them, I don't think you want the government to start dictating to people what they can or cannot own or do based on their interpretation of whether there's a NEED for those things or behaviors.

A good thing your guns can shoot down Predator Drones way up in the sky if that ever becomes the case.

Guns are not toys, so good on them.

Isn't that article written before the Orlando club shooting even happened and nothing in that article had to do with how either the Orlando och Sandy Hook perpetrators acquired their weapons. It didn't have anything to do with mass shootings at all, just how "professional criminals" acquired guns.

This two things has nothing to do with each other besides that firearms are involved, in a bad way.

On top of that, the study shows that most criminals get their firearms from a 2nd party, but no mention of how the 2nd party got the gun, legally or illegally, in the first place.

And yet he was still able to pass background checks and obtain firearms. Thanks, NRA and the politicians in their pocket, for opposing reasonable legislation.

You gotta love Snopes when they point out to bullshit. AG didn't ban Assault weapons, he's increasing enforcement of the ban that was already in place.

Although I don't support an assault weapons ban, the link in the OP is misleading.

Yeah but "Massachusetts is stepping up enforcement of an assault weapons ban that they've had in place since 1994" is far less sexy a title than "THEY'RE BANNING ALL ASSAULT RIFLES!!!!"

Here's the correct Snopes link:

http://www.snopes.com/massachusetts-banned-semi-automatic-rifles/

-Byshop