Quote:
Originally Posted by kalimus
Better be careful about this directive.
You say not all semi-automatic rifles will be banned, and while that may technically be true for those that are grandfathered under the law... the transfer and sale of new rifles under these guidelines may be affected more than some people realize. Note that the weapon in question does NOT need to be an AR style rifle... but rather just a semi-auto that can accept detachable magazines period.
Most semiautomatic weapons have internal components that are similar in construction and configuration. That's really ambiguous, and could flag a lot of semi-autos.
Under her second "test" you're going to flag "magazine ports" on almost every rifle because magazines can be interchanged between many of those rifles. And test is "not limited to" those 5 examples.
Basically, under this "clarity" or whatever the AG wants to call it, you could quite easily rationalize the ban of future sale or transfer of literally semi-auto that accepts a detached magazine.
I'd be very wary about the implications of this notice, and how it will be used.
|
AG Healey is quite clear about new sales. She put it in writing and gave it to the Boston Globe to distribute
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...pYM/story.html . She is emphatically clear. She says it will stop now. She told manufacturers and FFLs that yesterday. And nowhere do I suggest that the firearm needs to be an AR type.
And there's something I need to address. You say quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalimus
You say not all semi-automatic rifles will be banned, and while that may technically be true for those that are grandfathered under the law... the transfer and sale of new rifles under these guidelines may be affected more than some people realize. Note that the weapon in question does NOT need to be an AR style rifle... but rather just a semi-auto that can accept detachable magazines period.
|
Firstly no,
I do not say that. AG Healey does. Secondly, she specifically mentioned firearms purchased before 20 July 16- that was Wednesday. So by her own statement those are not "banned". That's [insert joke here] what she said. "Banning" them would require confiscation, logically. Again I quote Maura Healey here:
"We recognize that most residents who purchased these guns in the past believed they were doing so legally, so this directive will not apply to possession of guns purchased before Wednesday."
Note she says "
possesion" specifically. This suggests that the
sale is prohibited. But is that suggestion law? As I say we must collect info.
Did you just not understand what I posted? Or maybe you didn't know I was referring the the AG's statements verbatim?