Healey

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey enacted her very own scary gun crackdown in late July, using nothing more than her pen and her phone (where have we heard that before?). The ban angered Bay State gun owners — and even some everyday folks — who recognized the “clarification” as a government gun grab aimed at law abiding and potential gun owners.

Privately, Healey’s “assault weapon ban” reclassification hasn’t been welcomed by many of her fellow Democrats. They’re worried that her grandstanding will harm her fellow Dems during an election year, potentially crippling their chances to take down Republican Governor Charlie Baker in 2018. The Boston Herald’s Hillary Chabot wrote:

In deeply blue Massachusetts, the Democratic Party is turning into its own worst enemy.

…“I absolutely think this is 
politically motivated,” said [Democrat state Rep. Colleen] Garry. The Massachusetts congressional delegation backed Healey and supporters have pushed a #standwithmaura hashtag on Twitter. “She was looking to make news with the timing of this coming right around the Republican 
National Convention.”

…Legislators on both sides of the aisle blasted Healey’s move as a confusing overreach meant to pump up Healey’s political profile.

Hoplophobe Healey has surely succeeded in getting her name out there. It’s just that Massachusetts Dems are finding out that when you and your friends step in a steaming pile, it tends to stick to your shoes and follow you around. There’s much doom and gloom among Democrats according to Chabot:

“There is no leadership from our state party. That’s just the truth,” said [Governor’s Councilor Eileen] Duff about the Democrats. “We need to change, we need leadership, we need courage and we need energy. We cannot take for granted that this is a blue state because it’s not.”

The internal backbiting comes as Democrats have also sparred over charter schools and even elections as progressive supporters of failed presidential candidate Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders seek to flex their muscle under the Golden Dome.

That’s too bad. Then again, it’s not uncommon for gun grabbers to exhibit over-reach, and for it to bite them in the rear in subsequent elections. And it looks like they’re slow learners, given how it seems to happen again and again. And again.

60 Responses to MA Dems Push Back Against AG Healey’s Unilateral ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban

  1. What I find interesting is that according to the FBI’s yearly homicide statistics, rifles of all kinds, including so-called “assault weapons”, have consistently killed fewer people than hands and feet (in the low hundreds every year) yet they remain the prime target for grandstanding gun-bans.
    Worse yet, gangs not guns are the real problem: “According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), gang homicides accounted for roughly 8,900 of 11,100 gun murders in both 2010 and 2011.” — JPFO.org
    If she is really interested in saving lives, she should crack down on gangs.

    • It would be nice if she was really interested in saving lives. However, as always, she is naught but a would be tyrant simply trying to increase her share of power.

      Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.
      quote from ayn rand

      • I strongly recommend, during this election season, that everyone buy and read “The Virtue of Selfishness” by Ayn Rand. And keep in mind that it was written in the early 60s.

        • Reading Rand is great for philosophical inspiration. The book that really introduced me (about 11 years ago) to the true nature of authoritarian government is a non fiction account of the son of an American emigrant whose father took him to soviet Russia in the mid 1930’s. The book’s title is An American in the Gulag. written by Alexander Dolgun. I wis I could force every pro socialist in this country to read it.

      • Its not about power. Banning black rifles is the next step after regulation infringement with the follow on to handguns.

    • They don’t care about “guns.” They care about “control.”

      They crack down on rifles because it’s an emotional hook to get people to give them more “control.” It has NOTHING whatsoever to do with solving an actual problem.

      Recognizing this basic fact is Step 1. Don’t think for a quick second any “gun control” has anything to do with lowering crime or ‘violence.’ It doesn’t.

      • Actually, the point is purposeful “social engineering “. Other people playing god…Stripping everyone of their codified liberties. Because the government has become so big .It no longer fears the citizenry because they are now the ones who are “metering out how much liberty and rights we deserve. ” Because Mommy and Daddy.gov know best…Next up, watch no more USA…”Globalization / One-World Global Governance / EU-NWO. “

      • Yes they care about guns. Think. What are AR-15s useful for and why might the state be concerned with the people having such tools? What state activity might be difficult when such tools are in the hands of the people?

        Only one conclusion can be drawn when, as you note, these tools are not used in crime and violence that they say they are interested in stopping, and yet their main focus remains – obsessively on these specific tools.

        A very ugly conclusion.

        • You hit the nail on the head Mr. 308. I couldn’t agree with you more. I agree on everything except your moniker. Mr. 30-06 would be better.

      • I fully understand your point and have for a long time, but I believe we must also address their putative reasoning to show its flaws and demonstrate they are indeed not really concerned about safety by calling them on their their safety bluff.

    • So long as gangsters are killing each other, why is this a problem?

      The problem is when they get arrested and (sometimes) convicted and get to spend 3-5 in Gangster College so they can come out and be even better gangsters, but not better shots. Maybe instead of letting them spend their exercise periods lifting weights we should give them tactical pistol classes? Airsoft, of course. (/sarc)

      • they also miss each other and end up killing innocents—like the NBA star’s cousin just a few days ago. they also tend to shoot first and ask questions later and sometime kill in a case of mistaken identity. So, I disagree, it is a problem and based on the 80-percent figure, the biggest one.

        • Yeah, those bangers really got it together, hit the bystander twice and their intended target and his slaves not at all. Mandatory target practice.

    • Gawd dudes. If you muddy the gun waters with stats about how much more dangerous sticks and stones are than guns, you strengthen the antis argument and weaken ours.

      The truth is that guns can kill faster, from a greater distance, in volume, and by “accident.” If you cannot admit that, then we will forever be under fire, so to speak.

      Pointing the finger somewhere else is petty, innefective, and shortsighted. Plus it is actually arguing that sticks, stones AND guns should be banned.

      • The point is not to redirect the antis’ ire to another target. The point is to identify the non sequitur in banning “assault weapons” to save lives. If the antis really cared about saving lives, their efforts could be spent on a litany of other issues.

        • This. If they are trying to argue that they should restrict the rights of Americans in order to solve a serious problem, at the very least they should be required to 1) show that there is a problem to be solved, then 2) show evidence that their proposed solution is likely to work. Not that those two would be sufficient in all cases, but should be required before even opening a discussion.

    • The reason the GOV is so worried about Rifles is be Rifles is what will be used to restore the rule of law.
      If they can remove Rifles, there will be no more obstacles to their intent to remove every other enumerated Right.

      • Rifles will be used to replace one tyranny with another. Just because you approve of the new tyranny doesn’t make it less a tyranny.

        • It won’t be tyranny. We will have fair and open elections and all voters* will eagerly partake.

          *All voters previously registered as Democrat having been deported to the socialist paradise of their choice.

        • There will not be tyranny.
          The Founders disagreed with you…
          The Militia is…

          All the people, everyone:
          I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.
          — George Mason

          A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.
          — Richard Henry Lee

          Is not under government control or restriction:
          The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out.
          — Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers #28

          An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics — that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe…
          — James Madison

          So did Hubert Humphrey and JFK…

          “Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.”

          –Hubert Humphrey

          Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.
          — John F. Kennedy

    • What you say is true and is available for anyone to read for themselves, which makes it completely irrelevant to democrats and Liberals everywhere since facts mean nothing to them. They much prefer emotional histrionics designed to stampede the sheep into a state of terror wherein they will turn their lives over to the government to live for them. By ‘government’ we of course mean the Liberal elite like Clinton and Obama.

  2. In other words, her fellow Democrats aren’t pushing back because they disagree with her, only because she was tipping their collective hand too fast and too soon.

  3. The Dems were SO SURE this election that gun control was the key issue to get them all elected.

    We can only hope that this backlash in Mass is an indicator of how wrong they are. There is apparently more than one way to get shot down by messing with peoples’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.

    • I hope you are right. The polls don’t show it at this point, and the polls are usually right. Unless Trump gets a “yuge” turnout of people that don’t usually vote, we very well may vote for gun control this time around.

      • That is a sad, but valid point. In 1992, neither gun control nor health care were subjects of discussion during the campaigns of anyone, Prez, House, Senate, none of them. As soon as the election was over, suddenly there was supposed to be a “mandate” for this or that, really, REALLY pissed people off, and they paid for it in 1994. This time, sorry, both subjects ARE on the table, if Hillary is allowed to ascend the throne there will be no way to deny her agenda. Just settle in and enjoy servitude or civil war, those will be the choices. But, hey, don’t vote for Trump, he may not be absolutely perfect, at least that is what Hillary claims.

  4. As a New Englander, I say again ! This is nothing more than our government run amok ! They no longer Fear the citizenry and will do as they please. They will reshape, and restructure our US Constitutional-Bill of Rights. They will ban, restrict, or prohibit any amendments, rights, or liberties that we have. You will be “Guilty till proven innocent–by Law Enforcement…” There will be ” No Due process of law”, for in the Liberal Democratic mindset. Every citizen is a potential criminal. Especially, if not of the political party proper..No this is not the description of a “Democracy, but the definition of Authoritarianism. “

    • Democrats, Liberals, Progressives are all Utopian dreamers and history has shown over and over that any Utopia MUST devolve into an authoritarian fascism to suppress dissent. Utopia cannot afford to harbor dissidents.

      • Your analysis is incorrect, friend.

        We are merely protecting those who should not be allowed to think for themselves. They are a danger to the village as a whole. We must sacrifice individuality for the great good of the party to ensure we reach our vision of freedom.

        (That is Dem-speak for: “We are smarter than you. Why can’t you just accept it and bite the pillow?”)

  5. Attacking from both ends of the spectrum. The big fish go after ghost guns, clipazines and scary black rifles, whilst the other agencies target lead, gunsmiths, wetted nitrocellulose…

    More to come, my friends.

    But just stay home on election day.

    Kim Jong-Un approves of your clear conscience and apathy in getting my party friend Hillary elected.

    • Have you ever seen that movie with Richard Pryor? Vote None of the Above!

      Honestly, it doesn’t really matter who gets elected. The president is just a figurehead, the people running the show do not care who gets elected. Hillary is already in bed with ’em and one of ’em, Trumpy will jump in bed very quickly if he gets in and so will Johnson or Stein or any other long shot 3rd party candidate.

      The whole game is rigged, not just the election or one candidate…it’s the whole friggin’ system and unfortunately nobody understands that. The Constitution is dead…it either led us to the system we have today or it was powerless to prevent it so either way this experiment has proven to have merit but is ultimately a failure. No need to restore, time to reset and start again.

  6. “We cannot take for granted that [Massachusetts] is a blue state because it’s not.”

    Hah! I rank Massachusetts right up there with Hawaii, California, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut in the blue state column.

    Now, to the extent that “blue” really should mean Communist these days and “red” often means 1960s Democrats, then maybe Massachusetts is a “red” state by that definition. Otherwise, Massachusetts is as blue as the sky on a dry cloudless Summer day.

  7. She’s trying to get herself lined up for a cabinet post in the clinton admin. Jokes on her. Bill likes them younger and fatter.

    • She doesn’t eat meat, she is a vagatarian! BTW she said she decided to do something after Orlando and what spawned this was media asking her if this could happen here. I doubt she was asked but acted unilaterally because of the gay equation.

      • World’s most famous vegetarian was… Wait for it… Adolf Hitler.

        Another reason I don’t trust vegetarians. There’s s little bit of Hitler in them.

        😉

  8. IMO

    The parties are self assured in their continued existence because we as a collective of individuals vote on the minutia of what at the time we think is important to ourselves.

    After an election, the act of governing, if we can call it that, takes place. Also those elected try to raise money for their next election and for the lifeblood of their party, or in Maura’s apparent case, position themselves for a national appointment, and work within the party governance.

    Party agenda and platform take precedence over us as individuals. Not saying anything new.

    The one real action we can take is to use our collective vote to counter party strength. For example, in MA we have a great deal of numbers (gun owners). Collectively for local, state, and federal races lets destroy first the Democratic Party; do not vote for any Democrat regardless of whether they are your best friend. Once our numbers prove that we can and will destroy a party and putting the scare into every elected official, we as citizens can regain control of our democratic process and freedom.

    Until we do that we are at the mercy of selfish voters and party loving fanatics, lobbyists, party platform, and those seeking personal power in politics.

    • “…let’s destroy first the Democratic Party “. In Massachusetts? You’re a very funny guy. Good luck in your quixotic quest.

    • “……. we are at the mercy of selfish voters and party loving fanatics, lobbyists, party platform, and those seeking personal power in politics.
      I think you just described > 80% of the MA voters. I live in Springfield and am amazed at how blind these people are to believe they still belong to a political party still associated with JFK.

  9. My favorite part is the “launched a Twitter campaign”. This is American politics, and this is how politicians get things done now.

  10. Where is the NRA-ILA on this? This tyrannical cancer will spread. I can’t believe the NRA is not putting resources toward fighting this blatant infringement. Pretty soon it will look like Maryland and California all over.

  11. Meh. I live in MA and I’m not seeing any Demorat backlash against Healey. Even our RINO governor fawned all over her overreach.

    If people think that Healey’s diktat is going to cost the Dems any votes, they’re fooling themselves. This is the Commonwealth of Masivetwoshits, where common sense left the building once the Kennedy Klan took over.

  12. The immediate politics here are largely irrelevant as are the facts surrounding the AR or AK platforms.

    This is a longer game than that. It’s incrementalism. The SCOTUS said in Heller that all weapons that are man portable and in common use are protected. Clearly the AR is man portable and it’s one of the most popular rifles in the country. So, what the AG is trying to do is get an “except” attached to the language of Heller. So all man portable firearms in common use are protected except these over here because they’re too dangerous/scary/whatever.

    If that’s allowed to stand as a precedent then they have a legal line of attack on other guns and they can pile on “reasonable regulation” unless everything is illegal.

  13. At the risk of offending the more demure of the species, this “attorney general” is PROOF that extending suffrage and by inference, political power to women was a big mistake.
    This “attorney general” seems to be ruling based on her emotions, and not facts or logic…allowing emotion to rule, it being a trait that may women possess…
    Just sayin’

  14. Do they hate these scary black rifles because they are black? It seems like veiled racism to me especially considering historically the democrats were pro slavery and later pro segregation. Some democrats were known members of the KKK.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *