The NRA announced plans to challenge Massachusetts’ new firearms law, signed by Governor Maura Healey last week. The law has sparked significant concern among gun owners out of a very real concern it will effectively ban common firearms.
Governor Healey signed the bill on Thursday, introducing measures to combat ghost guns, expanding laws for the confiscation of firearms from individuals deemed a threat and adding schools, polling places and government buildings to the list of areas where firearms are prohibited. The bill also redefines “assault-style firearms.”
“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,” stated the NRA last week. “NRA will be challenging this law to restore the rights guaranteed to Bay Staters by the U.S. Constitution.”
The legislation passed the Massachusetts House with a 124-33 vote and the Senate by 35-5, NBC Boston reported. Opposition included a handful of Democrats who joined all Republicans in voting against the bill. The vote demonstrates how overhwhelmingly Democrat and politically unbalanced the state is. Among the dissenters were 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, Jonathan Zlotnik of Gardner and Independent Rep. Susannah Whipps of Athol.
The law’s new definition of “assault-style firearms” includes semiautomatic shotguns, and any semiautomatic centerfire rifle or pistol with the ability to accept a detachable feeding device and featuring at least two specific characteristics. These features include a folding or telescopic stock, a thumbhole stock or pistol grip, a forward grip, a threaded barrel designed for a flash suppressor or muzzle brake, or a shroud encircling part of the barrel to shield the bearer’s hand from heat.
Gun owners have expressed concerns that many of these features are common and cosmetic, potentially rendering a broad array of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns illegal. The Gun Owners Action League, the NRA’s local affiliate, stated in its summary that the new definition “includes most, if not all, semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.”
Democrats who drafted the bill maintain that it will withstand constitutional scrutiny. However, Randy Kozuch, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, criticized the law as one of the most extreme gun control measures in the country, citing its sweeping gun bans, magazine restrictions, mandatory firearm registration, and stringent training requirements.
The NRA’s planned legal challenge aims to overturn what they describe as an overreach infringing upon Second Amendment rights. As the debate intensifies, the impact of Massachusetts’ new firearms law will likely resonate beyond the state’s borders, influencing national conversations on gun control and constitutional rights.
Meanwhile, my state has a plethora of unconstitutional firearm laws (which federal appellate courts have overturned in other states/jurisdictions) and no one is filing any lawsuits–not a single one–in my state. Talk about low-hanging fruit. All a law firm would have to do is copy-and-paste the successful lawsuits in those other federal appellate jurisdictions for an easy win in my jurisdiction.
For reference firearm liberties in my state were somewhat below national average 10 years ago, although far superior to states like California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. Unfortunately the forces of civilian disarmament have been on a roll and now firearm liberty in my state is nearing the bottom of the proverbial barrel.
Colorado Delaware or Maryland?
I am guessing, Washington State.
None of those guesses are correct, although they were very good guesses.
About the only heinous laws not yet on the books in my state are “scary rifle” bans and magazine capacity limits. (I imagine those are in the works.) We have everything else:
— red flag laws
— safe storage laws
— mandatory reporting stolen firearms within 24 hours
— universal firearm registration
— universal background checks
— must go to police station to pass background check and obtain license to purchase EVERY SINGLE handgun before purchase
even when purchasing from federal firearm licensees who also run background check at time of sale
— no long gun access in vehicles
— expensive concealed carry license every few years
— mandatory training and live fire for concealed carry license
— IMMEDIATE disclosure of concealed handgun at traffic stops
— long list of misdemeanors that disqualify concealed carry licensure
— driving under influence disqualifies concealed carry licensure
— long list of locations where licensed concealed carry is banned
— mandatory training for hunting
My state-level gun rights groups are completely feckless and do nothing any more other than solicit paid memberships. They don’t even keep up their websites or social media pages any more, much less even consider filing any lawsuits.
Well looks like I need to study up on other states again.
DC?
I think DC has a capacity limit of 10. If I’m not mistaken, that includes a chambered round.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Jersey
Hawaii?
Nope. Wisconsin and Minnesota laws are better. I eliminated New Jersey (which is worse) as a possibility in my opening comment. I believe that Hawaii is worse as well.
Uncommon_sense, please tell us so we know which state to avoid moving to. We don’t want to move to that state because it doesn’t haven an AWB (ban on scary-looking guns) and then find out the hard way that it has every other form of infringement known to man.
Stuck in NJ,
In terms of relocating (moving), if you want an easy way to determine which states will have decent firearm laws, simply identify the states that have decent Republican majorities in their legislatures both historically and currently–and usually vote for Republican Presidential candidates. That basically means states in the middle of the U.S. as well as the states in the South, plus Idaho and Wyoming. (Montana and Arizona are kind of a mixed bag and potentially trending worse on freedoms.)
Avoid the West Coast, New England, and Mid-Atlantic states along with Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.
Michigan
If nothing else this has been a good “what bullshit laws have we missed” exercise for identifying future targets.
Dude might be on the right track.
grasshopper dry those tears…It’s what you and those like you get for being zipped lipped slackers who barked at Defining Gun Control by its History…
Still barking up that tree? Probably still being a bitch to anyone that points out you don’t accomplish anything too.
void…Back it up azzhole…you have what I post plus a video to debunk, that will keep a pos like you very busy.
Debunk? No you misunderstand or are just dishonest with yourself. Nobody besides Miner and maybe jsled disagree with the content of the videos. It’s their being mostly useless and your being a nasty piece of work to any you interact with. Ultimately you are a loose cannon that brings the movement down. I mean look how worked up you get with light teasing or trolling.
“Meanwhile, my state has a plethora of unconstitutional firearm laws (which federal appellate courts have overturned in other states/jurisdictions) and no one is filing any lawsuits–not a single one–in my state.”
Well, what are you and your friends doing about it? Know any lawyers?
Crowdfund legal challenges, then. Become a political activist…
Depending on region crowdfunding can work amazing or make one a target. NY is a bit of both where the state attorney general’s office is a mix of incompetent, petty, vindictive, and connected. If the region in question has limited funds/organization it can be hard to hit critical mass in moving things forward in a way that work. Oddly we luck out with a large gun culture/population that is willing and able to spend against the leviathan but I can imagine several states where multiple factors could play against this where waiting on a circuit court decision is unfortunately the most efficient course of action.
Geoff_PR,
I have personal and professional “entanglements” which make me a bad candidate for filing lawsuits. Otherwise, I would be contacting all of the gun rights organizations and volunteering to be the plaintiff.
Geoff PR,
By the way I used to be a political activist. I went to several consecutive rallies at our state capitol and contacted my state politicians. Then I noticed that state Representatives and Senators kept sending the same form letters for responses and never changed their positions. The final straw which broke the proverbial camel’s back was when our state legislature approved bills to significantly improve our concealed carry license laws, our Governor vetoed them, and our veto-proof majority REFUSED to override our Governor’s veto. When I inquired with my state’s most influential gun rights organization about that, they effectively told me to to shut up and like it. That made it crystal clear that all of the activity was just political theater–and that the real politics happened in secrecy behind closed doors among Republican and Democrat Party power brokers.
Get your State affiliate with the NRA to file a lawsuit in Federal Court. When it goes to the appeals level should the initial filing fail, have your State Affiliate request assistance from the NRA. That is what happened in the Bruen matter.
As usual, and as always, these laws will do nothing that affects the criminals, punishing only the law-abiding gun owners, shooters and hunter, and those wishing to protect themselves, family and friend from criminals, who as mentioned earlier do not pay attention to laws. For Democrats and Liberals who voted for this insanity, that is why they are called criminals. I bet a lot of criminals will go to those training classes, too.
If logic and common sense is applied to the analysis of these gun laws, it is clear that they are not about safety or saving lives but about disarming the American citizens and patriots. The definition of an assault rifle, or is it now assault gun, neither term which applies to ANY firearm (AR stands for Armalite, the original manufacturer of the “black rifle”). There should be a test for people running for offices. Call it the Common Sense and General Knowledge Test — make a simplified version in baby talk for Democrats and Liberals who know nothing about firearms, people, life and the nature of man. They are really dumb and short-sighted.
As for the new “no gun zoned”, it just means more killing fields for the psychopaths who want their 15 minutes of fame.
(A lesson from Venezuela) The Real Lesson of Venezuela: Never EVER Give Up Your Guns > https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/2024/07/30/the-real-lesson-of-venezuela-never-ever-give-up-your-guns/
“The first rule of gun safety is NEVER let your government take your firearm.” tee from Lilicloth.com
“The legislation passed the Massachusetts House with a 124-33 vote and the Senate by 35-5…”
And these numbers reflect a total of all republicans voting against, with a handful of democrats joining them???
Holy crap!!! With numbers like that, it won’t matter how much money or support NRA ILA, or GOA, or FPC, et al pour down the rathole into the MA cesspool. Should the litigants be successful in court, their legislature, such as it is, will just pass another version only worse.
The problem, as is the solution, is obvious, at least for the time being. Probably time to book a U Haul.
I see nothing much has changed here…
Check back closer to the election and/or some circuit court level decisions for awb/carry laws, should be entertaining.
More paranoid totalitarian communism from the Marxist state of Taxachusets.
The sheer size of the MAJORITY in both Houses for passing this bill should post warning that the Winds of Change are indeed passing over the USA as regards firearms Control The wording inn the opening COMMENTS seems to suggest that it is somehow UNFAIR that there is a large majority of DEMOCRATS would the same be true if there was a LARGE EPUBLICAN MAJORITY>> I doubt it> That’s the nature of DEMOCRACY -the vote does not always f goy ou way +suck it up. and live to vote another day. In the meantime it’s the PEIOPLE OF THE UAS that gave the STATES the authority to pass their own legislation was it not? and that is also written into the CONSTITUTION . There is also NOTHING in this STATE LEGISLATION that goes against the SECOND AMENDMENT.
It is interesting though that when CANADA was established as a NATION the Legislature deliberately avoided creating a FEDERATION of STATES that could act independently in matters LAW and chose instead to go down the road whereby the SAME LAWS apply to every Citizen in every which included by the way every colour and creed and Native Canadians.
Buddy you may want to get some medical attention it looks like you may be having a stroke.
Come and Take it ya Nasty old Hag!
I don’t think they have the ability to be shocked into the reality of what they have done.
They have become the echo of the King of Britian and redcoats to disarm the colonists. They are cursing the militia, who in response to tyranny, set the Revolutionary War in motion that eventually gave us America. They mock those who purchased their liberty with blood, sweat, tears, limb, life and fortune.
I bet most of the complaints they had back then, are present in modern day MA. With new ones added in.
We should rename the state “Tyrant King” and Boston should become “Red Coat”. The state house will become “We wouldnt even pi** on the Constitution if your liberty was on fire”.