Massachusetts Effectively Bans All Semi-Auto Weapons

Gun control won't solve nothing at all, what's needed is bullet control. Makes bullets $100 a piece and see how many innocent standers there'll be....

Even that won't have any immediate effect but over the longer term it will.

Oh dear lord. I came in here to see what the buzz what about. Though I never post in forums, I gotta post here.

Ok, so for years, I was a prosecutor in Massachusetts. I've actually prosecuted people for violating Massachusetts gun laws. I've sent people to jail for same. So let's all take a step back, because this discussion, like pretty much every single solitary one involving guns and gun bans might be all fine and great and groovy when it comes to erudite thoughts about greater rights and our standing up to the man or whatever, but it has no bearing at all in relation to what goes on in the trenches of courtrooms, or what the government is ACTUALLY DOING with these laws.

These things are nice on paper. They get headlines. They make certain people happy when they're passed, they make others happy when they're not, but to a DA, they're what we think of as secondary statutes (I used to call them secondary weapons, but that's SO unseemly......)

Here's what that means.

Unless you are stockpiling illegal guns, or you have links to really, really bad people, you aren't going down for violating a gun ban. You just aren't. You have a better chance of going down for having a joint in your car than having a gun you shouldn't have.

So why have them at all, you say?

Because they give the DA a secondary way to get you if he thinks you have to get got.

Say, for example, the cops pulls someone over and find a gun in the dude's car. They cuff him, seize the gun. Then they proceed to do an illegal search of the car (or a search that gets found to be illegal later, which is oh so very often the case, because of another Amendment you all like so much). In said search, they find 450 pounds of heroin in the trunk. Oopsy daisy. Now we all know the driver is a bad, bad man. But, sadly, the heroin gets excluded because the search was bad. But guess what? The gun doesn't. The gun is a-ok because cops have the right to take things that might cause them to become unsafe. So I, the DA, can sit there and WHALE on the dude for the gun, even though what I'm REALLY whaling on him for is the drugs.

Absent the drugs, two things happen: One: The cops bring this to me and I say "What? Dudes, this is just a guy who didn't do the paperwork, he has no record, please go away" MORE LIKELY: The COP, who is very likely pro-Second Amendment himself, DOESN'T ARREST THE GUY AT ALL, says "Be on your way, don't let me see that again," and life goes on.

These laws, SO VERY MANY CRIMINAL LAWS are so very grey. No blacks, no whites. The criminal justice system is a messy, messy place where 23 year old lawyers trying to make a name make judgment calls all by themselves 30 times a day every day. And no article, no source, no sound bite, no NOTHING is ever really going to capture that.

So the above? That's how it is. Is that liberal? Conservative? Evidence of a government that is using the law to do an end around the Fourth or protecting the Second? Both? Neither? Who knows? I don't, and I got paid to do it.

And I'm glad I don't anymore.

Thank for the expert insight.

I've heard similar argument from the ATF regarding their opinion on "illegal" usage of pistol brace. For those who are unfamiliar with the context of what that's all about, basically under current gun law, rifles with barrel less than 16" in length is strictly controlled. Law defines rifles as a gun with stock meant for shouldering so firearms like handguns don't need to comply with the 16" barrel requirement. So you can legally manufacture a firearm that's exactly like a rifle but no stock and have less than 16" barrel on it. In recent years, companies have started making braces, basically rubber pieces that shooter can "brace" against to assist with firing. ATF has made the determination that braces are not stocks because their design and configuration were not intended to be used as stocks. For many years, ATF have always maintained that uses of firearms or accessories other than their designed and intended purpose is perfectly legal (e.g. you can hold a bipod like a vertical grip on a pistol legally even through installing an actual vertical grip would require additional permit because the designed purpose of bipod isn't that of a secondary grip). Operating under this premise, ATF initially published an "opinion" letter that states any use of the brace do not fall under ATF jurisdiction which effectively means people can use or shoulder the brace legally. After several months, ATF published another opinion letter that walked back their initial opinion and their long held position of "usage does not constitute as redesign or remanufacture" and basically made the claim that if shooter shoulders the brace then he/she have "re-designed" the brace to a stock and law regarding minimal 16" barrel applies. This created a huge uproar in the shooting community since it effectively "change" the law since what was "legal" one day was made "illegal" the next. Unofficially, ATF have pretty stated that they have no intention of pursuing stand alone cases of brace misuse but only to stack the charges for primary offense. But that's of little comfort to gun owners since the call is completely up to the AG's and judge's discretion. There's sufficient room that a combination of anti-gun prosecutor and judge to really screw gun owners even if it's not the norm.

As noted in the letter from MA senate and house, the reinterpretation is not explicit enough and the language broaden the intent of the original AWB. Even if AG had no intention of prosecuting local FFLs for skirting the AG's interpretation it does have the effect of removing the legal protection business once had. Many would decide that it's not worth the risk since just the fighting a case even one with a good chance of winning would kill their business.

There's also the oddity that, at least in MA, the AG is from, like, WAY on high. The VAST majority of criminal prosecutions happen at the county level. In those days, my (ultimate) boss was the District Attorney of Middlesex County. The AG was.....I don't know.....out there.....somewhere.....but was certainly not my ultimate boss. The County DA's take some guidance from the AG, but ultimately will do whatever they need to do to get re-elected by the voters of their own county. The police (at least the majority of them) are even more removed from the AG.

So all of this is rather muddy. And while I've never practiced anywhere else, criminal law is criminal law all over the country. And, believe me, "law" is a slippery thing anywhere.

What I WILL say is you can rest easy: NO ONE is going to jail for JUST having that rifle that is technically banned. NO ONE. JUST for that. Maybe people who have those will go down for other things, but not that.