Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Massachusetts Republican Governor [Not Shown] Supports Redefined Assault Weapons Ban

Billy Pitman, MA Press Secretary (courtesy

“Governor Baker supports the Commonwealth’s assault weapons ban, believes our comprehensive state gun laws work well in protecting the people of Massachusetts, and believes that the attorney general has the authority to enforce the law to crack down on the sale of guns that skirt the assault weapons ban.” Billy Pitman [above], Press Secretary to Republican Governor Charlie Baker in Gun stores see rush of business after Mass. AG plans to close loophole [via]



  1. avatar Z says:

    Why are weapons that complie(d) with the law considered ‘loopholes’? It’s the same with that Adler lever action shotgun for the aussie market.

    1. avatar Specialist38 says:

      Right. Their inane law was supposed to rid them of weapons they don’t like.

      The compliant weapons they still don’t like. There must be a loophole.

      Don’t let logic get in your way in hoplophobic thinking. It is an irrational fear.

    2. avatar Sian says:

      The same way law enforcement failing to report relevant data to NICS is a ‘loophole’.

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Typical, “I support the 2nd amendment, but . . .” politician. The guy’s a pure weasel.

    4. avatar Jim Barrett says:

      The intent of the law was to prohibit non-police ownership of semi-automatic rifles that had detachable magazines capable of holding more than a handful of rounds. As such, they specifically banned the AR-15 and AK-47 by name as well as incorporated the “features test” from the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (a gun is considered an “assault weapon” if it has two or more of certain features such as pistol grip, threaded muzzle, collapsible stock, etc.)

      As with California, enterprising gun manufacturers looked carefully at the law and found the loopholes that allowed them to omit certain features and thus circumvent the law. Essentially they argued the technicalities, but everyone always knew that the intent of the law was a broad ban.

      The Attorney General simply decided that enough was enough and she was done playing legal games with manufacturers. She has chosen to enforce both the spirit and letter of the law and ban certain firearms from the Commonwealth.

      The main objection to all of this should not be that the AG is closing “loopholes” but rather that a ban exists in the first place. If a ban is allowed to stand – this is the natural result.

  2. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Goes to show you can’t look just to candidates party with blind faith.

    Vote him out.

    1. avatar Burley says:

      “Run them out of town, tarred and feathered, on a rail”.
      There, fixed it for you. In case you haven’t noticed, the whole voting thing isn’t working.

      1. avatar Bob363 says:

        For tyrants, for those government officials who intentionally violate are rights, I want to see them in prison.

        1. avatar n64456 says:

          Or, hanging from the end of the rope; upside down. Just like Mussolini….

    2. avatar Alinsky says:

      A democrat would be much worse.
      Might find a GOP with a pro-gun stance, but they could not get elected in Mass. Better to move to a state that isn’t anti-gun.

      It’s basically a big city nanny mentality vs rural self-reliant mentality. Look at a political map of the US by counties and you will see a sea of red with big blue blotches of big cities scattered around.Frankly, the US will eventually have to be carved up or sink into a vicious civil war. The divide has gotten so bad it can never be healed.

      1. avatar Nate says:

        Unfortunately this seams too close to the truth. You can have a conservative city but it never lasts. I was thinking about this a lot after I read an article about a possible democrat Governor in Texas. I kept thinking of possible ways to district congressional districts better but haven’t quite come up with a formula that would be the Magic bullet. Honestly though firearms education from early middle school and up would help a lot, when I see that rare rare urban gun toting 2nd amendment constitutional American I just wish there were more of them.

    3. avatar Tom W. says:

      There are no real “Republicans” in Mass. politics anymore. Just squishy RINO’s.

      And the Massholes have voted for these folks.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        There’s Ralph. Just sayin.’

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        This guy is a real republican. He’s an opportunistic statist, who’s more focused on his cronyism.
        Since its inception as the inheritor to the whig party, the republican party has always been about big government and special interests. Anything else has always been a smokescreen or a fringe movement.
        Until the progressive era at the turn of the 20th century, the democrats were the party of limited government and individualism. These days you have to look at a party like the libertarians or constitution party to see those principles. At least as anything more than just rhetoric.

  3. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

    and how many mass shootings have they had with “assault ” rifles in the last 30 days….last month…last year vote him out!

    1. avatar That Guy says:

      None in the last year and 2 in the last 5 years with any semi auto rifle.

      1. avatar NorincoJay says:

        They haven’t had any mass shootings. Only two rifle homicides in the last five years.

  4. avatar Greg says:

    I’ll bet that many Republicans in Massachusetts are wondering today why they bothered to vote for this guy. Another spineless Republican with no real allegiance to the Constitution. Who needs enemies when we have have friends like Gov. Baker?

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Isn’t this the same state that elected “Republican” Mitt Romney?

      What we need is a Constitutional amendment stating that a political party has the right to establish its platform and to decide whether or not any candidate can identify himself politically with the party. This business of anyone who wants to claiming they are Republican when they run for office is how we wound up with a government full of RINOs.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        Instead why not an amendment stating that government can’t restrict our right to keep and bear arms?
        Oh wait…amendments don’t do anything when the people who are violating them get to judge the violations.

        Also, see my comment up a few posts about why this guy is perfectly acceptable to the republican party establishment.

    2. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

      As Ralph will confirm that a Republican doesn’t get elected in Massachusetts sounding like Rand Paul and faces a legislature that can override his vetoes. It seems that many of you believe you have a right to impose your minority views on the majority by executive fiat if necessary.

      Constitutional Consevative: Adj or n; a person who supports the constitution only when he agrees with the outcome.

      1. avatar Cliff H says:

        Sounds more like a Supreme Court Justice than Constitutional Conservative.

        1. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

          There is a subtle difference. The Judge is misusing his authority while the Constitutional Conservatve doesn’t have any authority.

      2. avatar Steve says:

        “Constitutional Consevative: Adj or n; a person who supports the constitution only when he agrees with the outcome.”

        So tell me, which part of the Constitution allowed to be done what was done?

        It isn’t the 2nd. Nor is it the 9th. Nor the 10th.

      3. avatar Ralph says:

        td summed up the state of the state very well. I will only add that the state has been run by the Irish mob for many years. For example, look up Billy Bulger, formerly the most powerful politician in MA while his brother Whitey was the state’s most powerful crime lord.

        The Irish mob is rabidly anti-gun — for us, not for them or the organs of state power that they control.

      4. avatar JasonM says:

        It seems that many of you believe you have a right to impose your minority views on the majority by executive fiat if necessary.
        What are we trying to impose on the majority? That they respect our rights? What terrible people we are.

        Constitutional Consevative: Adj or n; a person who supports the constitution only when he agrees with the outcome.
        That’s true to some extent (I’m a libertarian, so I support people’s rights to do things I don’t care for, like do drugs, gamble, or be gay, as long as they don’t impose on others), but irrelevant. Being wrong in some other cases doesn’t make them less right in this one.

        Incidentally the constitution exists, in part, to protect those minority views from the will of the majority. That’s a major difference between a constitutionally limited republic and a democracy.

  5. avatar Aquaticteabag says:

    Jesus, the comments on that article make me sick to my stomach.

    1. avatar Ross says:

      Really? Our comments or the ones over at the Boston globe ?

      1. avatar Mike says:

        “that article” leads me to believe the Boston globe.

  6. avatar John E> says:

    The citizens of Mass. used to have balls. Hell, the Tea Party showed that, but between then and the Boston Marathon Bombing, where people “sheltered in place,” something happened.

    These politicians realize that there is nothing the citizens will do. Hell, drag them out of their beds and put them before a citizens tribunal. You sure as hell aren’t voting them out.

  7. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Bunker Hill 2.0 coming to a hill near you?

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      The last place you would see the kind of courage demonstrated at Concord and along Battle Road is todays Massachusetts. As far as people like this AG, we still have tar and feathers available to express displeasure with government officials.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      The banning of all semi-autos is easily as big a threat as powder raids when enforcement has M16s and MRAPS and body armor.

  8. avatar Anon in CT says:

    And remember, his equally RINOy, gun-grabbing indirect predecessor is now the “liberaltarian” candidate for VP.

    1. avatar NorincoJay says:

      And that is why I won’t vote Gary Johnson. That made my mind up for me. Trump 2016

      1. avatar Publius says:

        Yup. I voted for Johnson last time, but his betrayal of gun owners means there’s no way I’d vote for him again. I’m on board the Trump train only to stop Hillary and to hopefully turn the tide on the Islamization of the US.

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        Johnson is the second least libertarian libertarian candidate every (Bob Barr? WTF?). But he’s also the only one with any shot of getting libertarian principles into the debate cycle. And he’s still far better than anyone the democrats or republicans have nominated in my life. By adding libertarianism to the debates, he could push the republicrat duopoly away from statism and cronyism in an attempt to regain votes. He could also set the stage for libertarians to get elected in other races, breaking our current political false dichotomy.
        But I completely understand those of you in states where the vote will be close voting Trump to avoid a second president Clinton. Clinton could admit to being a vampire who feeds on the souls of babies and still probably win Washington state.

    2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

      They blew it with that one Imo vote different for the same.

  9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Yet another example where a “Republican” is, in reality, a 1960s Democrat.

    What I cannot figure out is why so many of the politicians have shifted so much to the left. Today’s Democrats are basically Communists and today’s Republicans are basically 1960s Democrats. What happened?

    1. avatar CTstooge says:

      Americans have had it way too easy for the past 50 years. That’s what happened.

      1. avatar Mike says:

        ^^^ THIS!!

      2. avatar Accur81 says:


  10. avatar Southern Cross says:

    Hey Governor.

    Here’s an idea. Punishing the GUILTY is called JUSTICE. Punishing the innocent is called TYRANNY. In the last 25 years I haven’t seen much justice.

    When you punish the innocent, all you do is stiffen their resolve because they have NOT done anything wrong. And the innocent wonder why they are being punished for the actions of others then start to get more militant in their responses. Get a clue before those who a being punished unfairly do.

  11. avatar Jaypee says:

    Remember that time Boston was bombed? Good job legislating crime away, totally working

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      Looks like the AG and the Governor saw how easily the populace was put under martial law, how the public actually embraced it in “Boston Strong”, this is a no brainer….good thing Baker signed the law letting men use women’s bathrooms…maybe that’s where a lot of the men in MA belong.

  12. avatar NorincoJay says:

    Protest at her house. Follow her family. Protest at her kids school at her husbands job. Follow the family like paparazzi. Gun owners in Mass really need to go out and do some massive demonstrations and not in front of offices, but in front of houses.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I wonder what the long term effect would be if those demonstrators would light-off two or three firecrackers in rapid succession every time their person-of-interest (of their protest) appeared? I can only imagine that hearing those firecrackers going off in close proximity (without any warning) several times a week would start to wear a person down.

      1. avatar red Sox says:

        Firecrackers are also banned here, sorry.

        1. avatar Doesky2 says:

          Recordings of them are not.

        2. avatar red Sox says:

          As hate speech or inciting it is also banned here.

        3. avatar Random_Commenter says:

          How about a brown bag filled with lung air? Several people inflate them, then pop em. Same effect, but not banned, right?

    2. avatar red Sox says:

      Cannot protest at her kid’s school or husband’s job because in this case she cannot procreate as she is the wife of Appellate Court Judge Gabrielle Wolohojian.

      1. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

        Turkey basters have more than one use. . .

    3. avatar Doesky2 says:

      Yep. You got to make it personal. FLAME DELETED

    4. avatar Michael in K'zoo says:

      Sorry Brother! She has a domestic partner and “she” sits on the Massachusetts Court of Appeals. Kind of convenient isn’t it?

  13. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Write that “regulation” up as a change to tbe law, and dare the controllers to vote for it.

    This changes the playing field. If it fails, they lose the claim of popular support. If they won’t bring it to a vote, why not? If a law can’t be written that does what they want, well, they’re incoherent, what they want is impossible, or both.

    That “rule” makes the case, so feature it – they’re nuts. Squint right and that “rule” applies to every semi-auto, everything with a particular trigger – make a trigger that fits a “bad rifle”, and you can’t sell yr triggers for anything else – and god knows what else.

  14. avatar formerwaterwalker says:

    Oh I’m all too familiar with RINOS. I’m from Illinois- specifically Kankakee ”RINO capital of America “. Remarkably similar to Massachusetts. Huge Mafia presence (real ones too…” how YOU doin'”?). Home of felon ex- governor George Ryan (there’s your Irish dude). Anti-gun azzwhole’s abound…actually quite similar to a certain NY billionaire.

  15. avatar jj says:

    Defining an Ares SCR as a “loophole” when it has no lower hand-grip beneath the action, which all ‘experts’ in the gun control movement say is the profound differentiating factor, is insane.

  16. avatar Rick the Bear (now in NH!!) says:


  17. avatar Mark N. says:

    How can there be a rush to purchase ARs? As I read yesterday’s report, the ban went into effect immediately. What am I missing?

  18. avatar Ben says:

    A MA republican? So basically a democrat? It all makes sense now.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      He makes some democrats look conservative.

  19. avatar Pg2 says:

    Sad time for the people who supported Baker in his run for office. But at least men in Massachusetts can now use the women’s room.

  20. avatar Tom in PA says:

    The Maura Healeys of the world aren’t anti-gun – they are actually very supportive of gun ownership.
    They will need the guns of the police and other government agencies when they disarm people. They will say that isn’t their goal. They are lying. An armed citizenry is an intolerable affront to the elites and profligates who covet unconstrained power, and inexorably, its tyranny. They believe only the government should have guns – citizens are insignificant, and far too vacuous to be trusted with them. They will make decisions on our behalf. This isn’t “common sense” gun control, nor is it even the contrived, moral victory the Utopian liberal crusaders claim it to be – it’s simply another step toward consolidating gun ownership in the hands of the political elite and their lackeys. Welcome to the Oligarchy.

  21. avatar Mikial says:

    Just another Liberal Nazi from the state that brought us the Kennedy clan.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Massachusetts Republican Governor [Not Shown] Supports Redefined Assault Weapons Ban" title="Email to a friend/colleague">
button to share via email