Our friends at the Gun Owners Action League are still going through the text line by line, but they've already discovered massive infringements on our right to keep and bear arms in the sweeping gun control bill adopted by the Massachusetts legislature on Thursday afternoon. According to GOAL, the bill "essentially bans all semi-automatic firearms", or at least long guns, by adding a "shroud" to the two-feature test that's used to determine if a particular firearm is considered an "assault weapon." 

Additionally, GOAL says Section 49 of the bill prohibits the possession of both "large capacity" magazines as well as semi-automatic firearms

The bill also bans the use of 3D printers or CNC machines to make a home-built gun unless the builder possesses a license to carry. But the legislation goes even further by banning the sale of 3D printers and CNC machines that are marketed "with the primary purpose" of building firearms. 

The contents of H.4885 are bad enough to ensure a legal challenge. The sausage-making process of turning it into law is a problem of its own, and one that can't be rectified by the courts. After working behind closed doors since March on the specifics of a sweeping gun control measure, House and Senate Democrats released more than 110 pages of mind-numbing text on Wednesday evening, and then gave lawmakers and the public less than 24 hours to read the final version and comb over the details before calling for a vote. 

The bill was approved by wide margins in both chambers on Thursday afternoon after Democrats rejected calls by Republicans to slow down so that folks could actually learn what was in the bill before the final votes were cast.

Despite the hefty approval margins, Thursday’s vote wasn’t without its hiccups.

In the Senate, minority Republicans unsuccessfully tried to delay the vote. Then, when that effort failed, GOP lawmakers tried to have the bill’s full 116 pages read aloud.

“We have had little time to comprehend and talk to our constituents about this issue,” Sen. Ryan C. Fattman, R-Worcester/Hampden, said, according to State House News Service.

Republican Sen. Bruce Tarr echoed Fattman's concerns, chiding his colleagues for rushing to adopt the bill before the full ramifications of the legislation could be understood. 

I know I don't need to remind the members of this body that the issue before us directly impacts on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This is something to be taken seriously, considered thoughtfully. I dare say that I do not believe that can have been the case since 6:38 p.m. last evening. 

Some will say that many matters in this report had been subjected to public hearing, public comment. And they would be right. But as we all know, a conference report contains a unique set of provisions, many of which do not reflect the entirety of the House or Senate version, but rather a compromise or reconfiguration of those provisions into something new that did not appear prior. So in the legacy of this body, it has always been important to have transparency and accountability. It has been important for us to act from a place of understanding. The motion from my friend from Holden reflects that very legacy, trying to make sure we have time to understand that which pends before us. 

It is important for all of those whom we represent to have understanding as well. I doubt that has been possible, because the report, while filed with the clerk of the House at 6:38 p.m., was not publicly posted until significantly later than that. First and foremost, we should understand the contents of what pends before us, before we even get into the substance of it. It would be an incredible disservice to this issue, and all those who care about it, if we were to press forward at this hour without the opportunity for it to be posted online for a longer period of time, for us to consult with those who have expertise in these matters.

To which Democrats responded with a collective and resounding "no." After more than a year of crafting the sweeping gun control bill, lawmakers ended up voting on the final version after about an hour of debate in the Senate and House.

If GOAL's initial analysis is correct, it's hard to overstate the damage that H. 4885 will do to what little remains of the Second Amendment in Massachusetts. The hardware bans alone are enough to gut the right to keep and bear arms, and the new licensing requirements are going to make it nearly impossible for Massachusetts residents who don't belong to a gun club or live near one of the few publicly accessible ranges to obtain their license to carry... which is also required to possess a gun in the home. 

It's no wonder Democrats were in such a rush to approve this steaming pile of infringements before few people had a chance to really digest and understand what H. 4885 will actually do. But if they were unwilling to defend the bill on the House and Senate floor, the state of Massachusetts will still have to defend it in federal court once Gov. Maura Healey signs it into law. Based on GOAL's analysis, much of the bill is virtually indefensible, but if it's allowed to take effect or be enforced, its harms will be immediate and irreparable.