Massachusetts is never going to be mistaken for a pro-gun state. That is certainly ironic considering the American Revolution started there and started because the British wanted people's guns.
The irony burns.
Recently, the state passed a new measure meant to combat so-called ghost guns. The governor signed it and all was perfectly normal in the state. The problem is that the law in question is blatantly unconstitutional, as pretty much all gun control laws are, which means it was only a matter of time before someone brought a legal challenge against it.
And by "matter of time," I mean "a couple of days so the lawyers can proofread," apparently.
The National Rifle Association says it plans to challenge the new firearms law that Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey signed last week, adding its voice to the chorus of gun owners concerned that the law will essentially ban some common firearms, the organization said.
...
"With Governor Healey's signature, Massachusetts has enacted one of the most egregious and freedom-restricting laws in the history of the Commonwealth. We are thankful for the bipartisan group of legislators who stood against gun registries and the banning of commonly owned firearms and standard magazines," the Second Amendment rights organization said last week. "NRA will be challenging this law to restore the rights guaranteed to Bay Staters by the U.S. Constitution."
The final version of the firearms law passed the House on a 124-33 vote and cleared the Senate by a tally of 35-5. A handful of Democrats joined all Republicans in opposition: Sen. Marc Pacheco of Taunton, and Reps. Colleen Garry of Dracut, Patricia Haddad of Somerset, Kathy LaNatra of Kingston, David Robertson of Tewksbury, Alan Silvia of Fall River, Jeff Turco of Winthrop and Jonathan Zlotnik of Gardner. Independent Rep. Susannah Whipps of Athol also voted no.
The bill also changes how state law defines "assault-style firearms," which has some gun owners worried that many modern semi-automatic rifles could be considered illegal under the new law.
Another issue is that the law in question goes in so many different directions beyond so-called ghost guns that it's ridiculous. It strengthens the state's red flag law, adds more off-limits places for lawful carry--all without there being any incidents at any of those places that such a law could have prevented--and a host of other things.
Frankly, it's disgusting that one state despises the right to keep and bear arms so much.
Let's talk first about so-called ghost guns for a moment, which is how this bill was sold in the state.
Homemade, unserialized firearms are a fact of life. You can print your own lower receiver with a 3D printer and buy the rest of the parts one at a time if you can't get them in a kit. Every single item needed to complete such a firearm is available as either a replacement part or an upgrade from an OEM part. You're never going to put a stop to such weapons. All you're doing is making it more difficult for law-abiding people, which is true of every gun control law enacted since the dawn of firearms.
When Europeans first settled on this continent, one of the many things they routinely did here was build their own firearms. They'd buy parts and assemble them in their own home, crafting the wood components with their own tools and know-how, then use those guns to defend their homes and communities from aggression. When we became a nation of our own, many of those guns were used to win our freedom from the British.
Throughout the generations, there have always been those who sought to build their own firearms and, at least in this nation, they were free to do so.
As such, I find it unlikely there's any historical gun control law remotely similar to a ban on these weapons. As such, I truly believe that we're going to see this law eventually overturned, which is good news for people in Massachusetts.
But then again, most of them voted for these knobs. Were it not for my friends who are stuck living there, I'd say good riddance, but I wouldn't do those friends dirty like that.
