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.
