Maura healey massachusetts assault weapons ban
By Edahlpr - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Link

Back in 2016, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey unilaterally “re-interpreted” the state’s 1998 assault weapons ban and issued an “Enforcement Notice.” By expanding the AWB’s reach and doing so in a painfully vague manner, AG Healey’s move brought immediate state and federal lawsuits from the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), NSSF, and more. And it sounds like the primary federal lawsuit will move forwards without further delay.

According to this article in The Washington Free Beacon, AG Healey’s request for a stay of this lawsuit was rejected by a federal judge and the lawsuit will proceed. The primary reason given was the vagueness in AG Healey’s Enforcement Notice.

For instance, how the Enforcement Notice defines a “copycat” gun, which is its means of expanding the AWB to further firearms:

“A weapon is a copy or duplicate if its internal operating system is essentially the same as those of a specifically-banned weapon or if the gun has key functional components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon…”

I’m sure we can just all agree on what “essentially” means and “key functional components” are, right? I mean, a grip is a pretty important (some might say “key”), functional component of an AR-15, right? So does a bolt-action hunting rifle that accepts AR-15 grips now qualify as an AR-15 copycat? Yeah, denying the stay was a good ruling by U.S. District Court judge Timothy Hillman.

Sorry, AG Healey, we’ll see you in court. You know, the one that’s protected by the same “combat-style weapons” you’d love to deny your fellow Bay Staters.

45 COMMENTS

  1. What an awful, petty tyrant she is. It would be nice if a judge would apply Heller and smack down the whole AWB at some point making MA a free state once again.

      • Not gonna lie, I’ve been dreaming about one of those Brownells Retro rifles all day. The day this crap ends, I’m celebrating with one of those.

        • I wish you the best of luck sir. If you ever get tried of waiting, come on down to the free states of the south and enjoy your rifle. We ain’t given ours up anytime soon.

  2. Actually what I would like to see would be a lawsuit that finds all gun laws are unlawful under a full reading of the Second Amendment.

    • A finding that “strict scrutiny” is to be applied to the 2nd Amendment would almost do that (after quite a few additional lawsuits over a few years). It wouldn’t likely get the NFA invalidated though (but it might make it hard to justify keeping SBRs and suppressors in the NFA).

      • I’m not so sure that strict scrutiny would be a good thing. In the future the Scrutinizer’s may not be scrupulous, if “Shall Not Be Infringed” doesnt do it what would adding to that help. I see a loophole to play with there on strict scrutiny I don’t know ,

        • The key word is “infringed”. What does that word mean?

          The still more important question is the tense of the word “does”. What does it mean today? Or what did it mean in the late 18’th Century? Which would we like it to be?

          In the 18’th century “infringe” meant “to break”. What does it mean “to break” an aspect of the right to arms?

          To require one exercising this right to carry a plastic card would not seem “to break” the right. To deny the overwhelming majority of “the People” that plastic card DOES seem “to break” the right.

          We need to think about which gun-control laws are most vulnerable to being struck down on the word “infringed”. Should we go after, for example, the 49 states (plus DC) that “infringe” by requiring carriers to have a plastic card?

          Or, should we go after the 8 or so Won’t-Issue states? If SCOTUS won’t strike-down May-Issue why should we imagine they would strike-down Shall-Issue?

          If we can’t pluck the low-hanging fruit why should we dream of picking the fruit at the top of the tree?

    • Get Boch to comment on that Second Amendment Council the president appointed him to on the campaign trail. To this day I don’t think Boch ever brought it up again.

      • True I’d like to see what they have put forth and any success it produced.
        I also like to read fantasy stories too.

    • Absolutely! All M- Assachusetts Politicians…Including ALL M-Assachusetts Law Enforcement agents (local/city/stats) NEED to check all THEIR firearms into THEIR Police Departments armory when THEY go “OFF DUTY”! (No Police Carve-outs.. Violates the 14th Amendment under special privileges.)

      • Just another one of your every day Mass-holes, with apologies to those of you who live under the thumb of the Mass-holes throughout the state.

  3. AG. Maura Healey needs to be removed from office! Needs to be Adjudicated and Sentenced to prison for treason! Violating all MA residents constitutional rights! And here co-conspirators including current Globalist GOP RINO Gov. Charlie “The Barker” Baker…( Just another DemoCrap)…The GOP NEEDS to try harder to make Massachusetts a “Free-State.”

        • In order to get the edit button you have to check the “save my name” box below the comment box.

          If you run an adblocker you have remember to check the box every time you refresh the page or the tick mark goes away and you don’t get your edit button for the new comment.

        • “In order to get the edit button you have to check the “save my name” box below the comment box. ”

          For whatever reason, in my browser all three boxes must be checked every time.

  4. Always suspicious. Court is in the middle of the east cost elites. Maybe the judge simply wants the case to go forward quickly so she can drive a stake in its heart.

    • Possible, but even courts in CA and NY have pushed back on gun laws when they are overly vague. Judges don’t like vague laws.

  5. What will the Marxist witch to do now,cry in her vodka perhaps,actually WGAF what she does as long as she leaves.

  6. I would like to thank William Weld the former Governor of Massachusetts and vice presidential libertarian candidate for supporting the law in Massachusetts the Maura Healey is now using to take away 2nd Amendment rights to the residence of that state.

    The Libertarians are in full support of a candidate who signed into law anti civil rights legislation.

    He has never apologized for signing this law. Nor has any prominent libertarian ever address this issue. Nor has the former Governor ever spoke out against the current attorney general who is using his law. In fact I hear crickets from the Libertarians on this issue.

    I assume they’re too busy getting intoxicated on marijuana or shooting up crystal meth to improve their sexual experience.

    The Libertarians are just as infected as the Democrats are infected and the Republicans are infected.

  7. She’s not the first AG to decide what rights we have and done. The PA AG who docked the reciprocation laws was finally sent off to jail on numerous felonies. Beau Biden was anti gun and was tightening restrictions before he died.
    Getting reelected emboldened them.

    Does she play the man or the woman in her alternative lifestyle game?

    • Elected homosexuals are anti-liberty, anti-freedom, anti-second amendment. They always have been. There is only one example of an elected progun gay politician. Harvey Milk. And he was murdered in a gun free zone.

      But gay politicians are socialist Progressive in their political orientation. The believe in giving you “free stuff” in exchange for your civil rights. In exchange for your Liberty to become a slave of the state.

  8. Massachusetts “Government” wont be happy until it becomes a British colony again. Last one out of Mass, turn off the lights.

    • “Massachusetts “Government” wont be happy until it becomes a British colony again.”

      Seems they tried that already….1814/1815, Massachusetts Governor Strong refused to send militia to join the US Army in the war against Britian. Jackson earlier installed an embargo denying the US merchant fleet from doing business with foreign nations (especially Britian). Tension was so high, that Strong entered negotiations with Britian for the purpose of creating a separate peace treaty. As it happened, the 1812 war ended in America’s favor, and all Strong/Massachusetts accomplished was the destruction of the anti-war Federalist Party….and lay ground work for the Massachusetts District of Maine to become the State of Maine.
      https://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2012/06/15/new-england-succession

      • To be accurate, this wasn’t about support for Britain.

        The refusal to send troops was conditional. The feds NEVER paid MA residents who served the US during the revolution. They never paid a single cent of the money owed. They also never paid MA back for the cost of uniforming and arming them either. MA promised to send troops only if the feds promised to pay, which they eventually did. Then the feds reneged on their promise yet again. The feds owe dozens of trillions of dollars in war debt to soldiers if all promissory notes were actually honored in US Courts.

        • Indeed, the early years of Congress (including the Senate) were shameful regarding repayment of debts to Americans. Just look at how many of the founders endured the war, applied for reimbursement, and were stiffed by the central government.

          The purpose of mentioning the refusal of Massachusetts to send militia was to inform not only of the background of refusal to submit to the central committee duplicity, but to demonstrate how the nation was formed, and who was who in the line of power. One must note the reminder from Massachusetts that they were not a mere province/district of the national government, and looked to their retained powers to manage their own affairs. Even to the idea of forming a trade agreement with Britain, separate from the federal government. And with that, one might note that such independent action suggested that the union compact was considered dispensable if a State believed the national government was abusing its authority and power. Had the attempted trade agreement been completed, one would have to accept that Massachusetts had de facto decided secession from the Union was a power of the States. Isolated from the U.S., beholden to Britain in such a way that England could control the commerce between Massachusetts and other nations, Massachusetts would be essentially a colony, again.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here