Hey, there! Log in / Register

State to further restrict sales of assault weapons

Attorney General Maura Healey today announced an end to a loophole she said had let gun makers continue to sell high-powered weaponry in Massachusetts.

Under an "enforcement order" issued yesterday, Healey has banned the sale of "copycat" weapons that had the same functionality as the AR-15 and AK-47 but which were not specifically named in the state law banning the sale of assault weapons.

Some 10,000 of these weapons were purchased in Massachusetts last year, Healey said in a statement.

The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban that expired in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific and name-brand weapons and explicitly bans copies or duplicates of those weapons. Gun manufacturers, however, make and market what they call “state compliant” versions with minor tweaks to various parts of the weapon. Copycat guns are sold, for example, without a flash suppressor or with a fixed instead of folding stock. These changes do not make the weapon any less lethal and the weapons remain illegal.

The AG’s notice clarifies what constitutes a copy or duplicate weapon by outlining two tests. Under the tests, 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.

The notice also states that assault weapons prohibited under state law, as manufactured, cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.

The notice makes clear that the guidance will not be enforced against gun owners who bought or sold these weapons prior to July 20, 2016.

Topics: 
Free tagging: 
Ad:

Comments

Copycat guns are sold, for example, without a flash suppressor or with a fixed instead of folding stock. These changes do not make the weapon any less lethal and the weapons remain illegal.

It's almost as if... the definition of an "assault weapon" is completely arbitrary and without correlation to the actual dangerousness of a gun. Hmm.

up
Voting closed 0

One feature that makes AR weapons more lethal is that they're semi-automatic. The weapon ejects the spent casing and loads the next with each pull of the trigger.

These guns were designed to give deliver more firepower so the gun holder has a chance when outnumbered in combat. That is a feature not needed for hunters but effective when looking to kill as many people as possible in a night club. A high capacity ammunition loader helps too. Another characteristic that makes AR weapons more lethal by design is the high-velocity muzzle and a bullet that tumbles through the air and creates more damage in the target.

There may be an argument that the law as written has flaws but it's not arguable that these weapons are particularly lethal by design.

What Are The Semi Automatic Gun Laws (Assault Weapon Defined)

up
Voting closed 0

semi automatic just means the gun fires each time you pull the trigger and you don't have to cock the gun to reload for each shot. a handy feature commonly available since the late 1800s. People do use semi auto guns for hunting.

the AR-15 design, as sold to civilians, are NOT typically used by the military. the army uses a fully automatic version designated the M-16 that can fire 3 round bursts or full auto (pull trigger once and it fires in rapid succession) but the civilian version does NOT.

the standard capacity magazine holds 30 rounds. the bullets are .223 caliber and relatively small, just under a 1/4" in diameter so you can stack a whole bunch in the magazine, as opposed to a 45 caliber that is nearly 1/2" in diameter and would fit about half as many in the same height.

the bullets don't tumble through the air. they spiral like a football just like in any rifle. the muzzle doesn't make the bullets high velocity, the same bullets would travel at about the same speed if used in another rifle.

there are many rifles that have these same features. the AR is just a very popular style. Would you call a Honda civic a lethal car because more people are killed driving them than another model car? Of course not. They're just more commonly used.

up
Voting closed 0

Most modern firearm are semi auto. Semi auto is hardly a new technology. Do you wish to ban my grandfathers M1 garand?

Oh wait, Healey has already declared that a felony. Oops.

If we are all felons now why do we care about any other MA gun law?

up
Voting closed 0

On making shit up as you go. The MA AWB law was pretty clear, and the weapons being sold DO NOT violate that law. If you want to ban them, pass a proper law.

up
Voting closed 0

Laws only apply when she feels like it, and when it comes to dominion seeking through weapons banning, she doesn't feel like it.

up
Voting closed 0

Yep. Another "enforcement" passed without a public hearing or prior notice AND while the legislature is on break for National Conventions. Virtually ever legal gun(semi-automatic) has the same operating system or firing mechanism. Seems like incredibly ambiguous language that will make this "enforcement" more encompassing than intended.

up
Voting closed 0

What makes you think the AG's office does not have the authority? I can't say whether her office does or does not. I do know that the MA Constitution does enable the Supreme Court some extraordinary powers and the AG's office with consumer protection. Add to that the fact that Mass legislature sought to ban AR assault rifles and I think her order would stand up in court.

This enforcement can be challenged in court and will be if Gun Owners of America thinks they have a chance to win under existing law. If the AG's enforcement order was struck down by the court, then the legislature would pass the law to accomplish the same and a challenge to that would likely not win in court.

up
Voting closed 0

For 21 YEARS the Commonwealth and the ATF had the same interpretation of federal and now state law. But Maura knows best, and makes a totally different "interpretation".

The AG office in Mass is more dangerous than any rifle.

Also please explain Maura, why the police use these "weapons of war" that "have no place in civilian" use.

up
Voting closed 0

The police use them because [a select few] criminals use them.

Last time I checked people who walk into a gun store off the street are not a "well regulated militia"*. Really we should just get rid of all guns all together including most cops, save for a select few "armed response" police teams. Like England. You know what England has very little of despite some of the same crushing poverty and racial inequality, gun deaths. And yes, some criminals will still have guns [see ART above to deal with such]. But without a ready supply of legal -> illegal guns, things would be a lot different.

And for those saying the AG is overstepping bounds, again... if having a rifle is so important to you, join a "well regulated militia"*.

*We all know the founding fathers meant that phrase as the army of the time period. You can play grammar gymnastics as much as you like but that won't change.

up
Voting closed 0

ok, I just formed my own Militia. Happy now? I'll keep my guns thank you.

If the police "need" them, then I do too. If I can't have them because they're restricted for "Military only" then the police can't use them because they're not the military. It's either one or the other.

How is it so hard to understand that free people shouldn't be ruled by their government? We are a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

up
Voting closed 0

Your militia has no regulations. The police have lots of regulations.

Again i think you should be able to have a million guns if you want them. You just can't keep them in your house. That should be one of the regulations.

Anyone that thinks their odds of self defense are greater than the odds a member of their own house caps themselves in the skull is too stupid to handle a weapon and shouldn't be allowed to handle a gun in the first place.

up
Voting closed 0

"well-regulated" means to be in good working condition--not governed by bureaucratic policy!

You have been drinking the anti gun propaganda cool aid. This fallacy of keeping guns in some mystically safe location other than my own home makes no sense. Why would some storage facility be more secure than the safe in my own home? Again if Maura thinks that is best, she can order her police to do this but leave me out of it.

Second myth you regurgitate is that guns are impractical for self defense. The 1998 study so often misquoted never even considered acts of self defense that do not result in injury . Rather, the study simply compared firearm injury rates based on hospitalization at three city hospitals. But firearms are used everyday for recreation and self defense without causing injury to anyone.

;

up
Voting closed 0

Your gun is stored in a safe and you are going to get it out, load it and fend off a robber? In the dark? I know peoplw rhat own guns that havent been cleaned in years. Much less fired.

Please. Statistically the odds of a successful defense are about the same as shooting yourself. Add in the far greater propensity of using a gun for suicide in households with guns and the concept of holding a gun at home is ridiculous. A 20 year old completely discredited study? Thanks for proving my point.

No kool aid here. Sick of the killing on our streets with all the "stolen" and illegally/easily procured guns - almost 100% of which were originally sold legally.

up
Voting closed 0

You're laughable. And clearly incapable of having a civil discussion about guns. Its also apparent you do not care about a constitutional right as well as freedoms. Its the 2A that distinguishes the USA from other countries. Yes, sadly and unfortunately senseless gun deaths/murders are the price we pay for a freedom no other country really has. I, like many others, refuse to believe the Government will protect us and take care of us and is always looking out in our best interests. Feel free to be a sheep. The Founder Fathers were brilliant beyond their years, knowing it takes one bad President or leader to turn a country into a hell hole. Its scares me that people are okay with anyone unilaterally, without public notice or discourse, without the legislature, rewriting laws or interpret any laws to their liking. I'm sure you would be up in arms if the same was done to some other hot button topic like abortion, same-sex marriage, healthcare, entitlements....

up
Voting closed 0

Just keep them in a "well regulated" professionally operated facility (private or public).

The concept that you need a gun in your house is what is laughable.

Civil discussion about guns in a land where 30,000 lives are lost at the business end of a firearm each year - the irony of that statement is apparently lost on you.

That's a freedom we can do without and while it's impossible to know - I think the founding fathers would be aghast at what we have wrought with the incomprehensible interpretations of the 2nd amendment, most notably Heller which we are stuck with for now.

Good luck defending your "rights" with your Glock. Heard yesterday the army is developing basically a dog sized tank to carry a remote controlled machine gun. In the meantime - your "right" is a clear and present danger to me and my family (some of whom strongly agree with you). With the number of gun owning households now down to a low of 38%, it's only a matter of time before we get fed up with the arsenals a small number of Americans are building and we overturn that anachronism in the Bill of Rights. Maybe not in my lifetime - but eventually.

up
Voting closed 0

So if the concept of keeping a gun is laughable, where should they be kept? In a safe buried in the ground? Or what you are saying is guns in general are laughable and should all be melted into a pile of metal?

Regardless, IF an intruder ever breaks in your house or you are ever in a situation where you have to defend yourself and family, what are you going to do? Give them a hug and tell them violence is not the way? Put a flower in the barrel of the gun they are likely threatening you with? Call the cops and wait 5-10 minutes for them to respond? Again, you trust the police or government to protect you? I rather take my own matters into my hands.

Of the some 30,000 deaths due to guns in 2015, 21,000 are suicides. There were a total of 42,000 suicides in 2015- if theres a will theres a way. We are a nation of ~315 million people so gun related deaths is 1/10th of a percent, hardly statistically significant.

And whats the source of this 38%? Seems difficult considering Obama has been the best gun salesman this nation has seen. More guns were sold in 2015 than any previous year, so are you suggesting its a small group of people arming themselves? I doubt it. I guarantee more people are arming themselves than you think as the Government continues to fail to protect its citizens.

up
Voting closed 0

Don't care if it's private or public - police station, gun club or other. Just not in the home.

About twice as many people die each year due to accidents than defend themselves from bad guys
A suicide is FAR more likely in a home with a gun than one without. The mere act of removing guns from the home probably keeps thousands of people a year from using a convenient weapon at a time of despair.
Many of the guns used illegally are stolen from homes (which makes you question how well they are locked up). Lots of people break into homes - but haven't heard of too many people getting their gun stolen from the local gun club. I'm sure it happens - VERY infrequently.

That 38% number came out a week or two ago - have to find the source - but they've been tracking it for years and it's been declining steadily. Basically the gun nuts are acquiring more and more guns for some purpose - but fewer people as a percentage of the population actually own one.

Statistics don't matter to people that have a family member that killed themselves or were killed - to them 1 is a statistically significant number. We are talking tens of thousands of lives here - hundreds of thousands over time. That is a hellishly callous statement.

up
Voting closed 0

what I do in my home is none of your business. would you like me to come to your house and perform a risk assessment to dictate how you live your life?

liberty isn't just about YOUR freedoms, it's about letting others do as they please. As a gay American you would think Maura Healey would appreciate the concept of liberty. It's a sad irony that the first openly gay attorney general would act to reinterpret existing law to deprive people of their constitutional rights.

up
Voting closed 0

Bombs, propane tanks, certain chemicals and poisons the list goes on.

You can't drive certain cars on the road.

All kinds of stuff.

Guns pose a clear and present danger and if they are WELL REGULATED should not be kept in a home.

Plus, guns designed for hunting and target shooting are less if an issue. We need more regulation for items designed for war and general mayhem like AR15s.

Those should be shot only in a controlled facility and NEVER outside such a facility.

Reading the second amendment as an individual right makes zero grammatical sense. I love how the strict constructionists simply made up their decision in Heller out of thin ungrammatical air.

Personally i also highly doubt that the founding fathers would ever approve of what our gun culture hath wrought.

up
Voting closed 0

Heller v DC is very clear about the right of an individual to keep a firearm IN THEIR HOME for self-defense and the right of the government to regulate firearms. New CT gun laws passed after Sandy Hook massacre have held up in court. Laws that suspend a man's right to own a firearm in the home if he has a conviction for domestic assault have withstood challenges in court. The government can and should regulate lethal weapons. The reason it happens on the state level and not the Federal level is that the NRA owns a majority of votes in Congress and states take seriously their responsibility to protect he safety of citizens.

What is unique about Heller v DC is that is the very first time in the history of the US jurisprudence that the second amendment was interpreted as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. So much for originalism. Thanks Scalia you hypocrite.

up
Voting closed 0

White privilege : believing and expectations of "regulation", pipe down roberts rules of order, just today a black social worker was shot by police while assisting his mentally ill client. But I digress

up
Voting closed 0

"White Privilege:" An inherently racist statement used by people claiming to be against racism.

up
Voting closed 0

I assume you're pressing your representatives for legislature legalizing personal ownership of tanks, militarized drones, lethal explosives, and the like. Since your argument is that you need the same guns the police have, I assume you want their full arsenal. Isn't that your argument? That if the government comes for you, you'll be so fabulously prepared you'll be able to fight back with your weapons, and win? Because the police already have way more weapon power than you do and probably always will.

Now if you want to talk about the militarization of civilian police units, or the plutocracy that benefits from a constant state of war, then I'm happy to have a civil discourse about that. But I don't buy into the fantasy one person with a gun can ever use it defensively against a terrorist, crazy person, or government.

up
Voting closed 0

It i the right of the people to bear arms, not the right of the militia. The individual right to bear arms is the law of the land.

up
Voting closed 0

"The People" are supposed to be in a "well regulated militia". But times change, and militias were replaced with the permanent armed forces and national guard. If the people not in one of those organizations they have no need for guns. Also on the topic of change, back then it took a minute to reload one bullet. Guns were not really considered practical weapons outside of massed ranks of troops back then. If you wanted to murder a lot of people in a short period of time, the axe or sword was the weapon of choice when the 2nd amendment was written.

up
Voting closed 0

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"

up
Voting closed 0

Legal or otherwise.

Next up: Johnny Tremaine is entered into court evidence!

up
Voting closed 0

If the police "need" them, then I do too. If I can't have them because they're restricted for "Military only" then the police can't use them because they're not the military. It's either one or the other.
How is it so hard to understand that free people shouldn't be ruled by their government? We are a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

So, you're a proponent of what happened in Dallas and Baton Rouge then? I mean, those two guys were just exercising their rights to stop tyranny when they shot all those cops, right?

Or did they not wait for the proper determination that tyranny had broken out before shooting at the government officials...like cattle being "stolen"? Who decides that? Is there a flare or semaphore I should be on the lookout for so I know when I can start murdering government officials under the 2nd Amendment and until then I should just keep stockpiling weapons?

Or was it because they're black?

Finally, how should we not be "ruled by our government" when in the very next breath you say WE are the government by definition? Do we not rule ourselves? Again, when are we tyrannically ruling against ourselves? How will we know? Or does your loopy logic have a fatal flaw? You tout your need of the 2nd Amendment to protect against "the government" while simultaneously touting that our government is of/by/for us thus it should never be necessary to kill ourselves using the 2nd Amendment, no?

up
Voting closed 0

You fanatics read into this too much. I was simply was referring to the Heller ruling whereby SCOTUS upheld that Americans are entitled to possess firearms "in common use." Just like freedom of the press applies to common current day devices, like the internet, and is not limited to manual ink printing presses!

It's not about being able to overthrown the government or attacking anyone. It's a matter of fairness and equality. Since when did police departments become super humans that have more rights than the average person? No one is above the law. If Maura wants to halt sales of "military weapons" then she should start in her own department: law enforcement.

up
Voting closed 0

I think he is referring the the self-serving Washington elites that has infected and hijacked our Government. Do you actually think the worlds 'Elites' have interest in protecting their country? Not really if you look at whats happening in France, Germany, Sweeden, England.... Wealthiest area(City) outside of San Fran/Silicon Valley and NYC? That would be Washington DC

up
Voting closed 0

Really we should just get rid of all guns all together...

I was at my gun club yesterday, and there was a bunch of retired-type men and women using shotguns to (try to) hit six inch clay targets 16-plus yards away, travelling at about 40 mph.

The only thing that got hurt were the clays. Aside from the noise, it was as menacing and dangerous as a July afternoon on a golf course.

I think we should just get rid of golf clubs, myself. And baseball bats. And Hockey sticks. And...

up
Voting closed 0

When someone uses a single golf club to kill or maim 50 people in less than a minute, we can make that equivalence.

up
Voting closed 0

There have been more blunt instrument homicides than rifle homicides in MA in the past 5 years.

YOU LOSE.

up
Voting closed 0

Strawman Argument - 15 yard penalty. There is no gun nor anyone who can likely shoot and kill 50 people in less than a minute. That sir is a lie.

up
Voting closed 0

When someone on a trap field uses a double barrel over-under with 1 ounce target loads to kill or maim 50 people, I'm open to discussion about banning all guns.

Until then, I'm convinced that ALL GOLF CLUBS MUST BE BANNED!

up
Voting closed 0

It is he right of the people to bear arms, not that of the militia.

up
Voting closed 0

How many elected officials would give up their armed details? Not too many I think. Why is their life more valuable than yours or mine?

up
Voting closed 0

What do you think happens when guns are made illegal? The supply just dries up, and criminals can't get them? There are way too many in circulation for your comparison to England to be relevant.

up
Voting closed 0

Just another suit with a law degree.SEND LAWYERS, GUNS AND MONEY.

up
Voting closed 0

Will someone please explain to the AG that there's an elected body called the legislature which authors law and if she wishes to write law she should run for election to it?

Is the separation of powers and rule of law dead?

Is the legislature really cool with abdicating power to the AG to arbitraily change by decree laws they've written?

up
Voting closed 0

that she doesn't know we have a legislature.

up
Voting closed 0

That's good news. But what's the proposal for the thousand of guns that are stolen and have serial numbers removed?

up
Voting closed 0

" Under the tests, a weapon is a copy or duplicate if its internal operating system is essentially the same as those of a specifically-banned weapon "

So a piston driven ar15 is perfectly legal? Nice.

Interpretations of guns by someone who knows nothing about guns results in this garbage. EFF off Healey.

up
Voting closed 0

No, a piston-driven AR-15 isn't perfectly legal because the AK and a few other weapons on the list are specifically-banned weapons and a gas-piston AR-15 would be a duplicate because the internal operations are the same as those of a banned weapon.

Seriously, you're supposed to be one of the pro-gun voices here and you don't even know what you're rallying against?

up
Voting closed 0

The piston operating system does not share the same operating system as the direct impingement AR15 the platform banned is direct impingment. The manner of operation is not the same. Of course the AG seems to be arguing all semi autos are banned if they share an operating system with a "assault weapon". Therefore all semi autos are banned. M1 Garands, 10/22s, semi auto bird shotguns, ALL FELONIES.

If that is the case I am a felon and no longer give two sh**s about MA gun laws. Why worry about the mag ban when I am already committing a felony?

If all semi auto platforms are banned we are all felons. If you handled a semi auto firearm in the past 20 years (not owned) you are also a felon!

If I tape my cellphone to my rifles/handguns is it now legal because it runs on Android operating system? lol.

The MA motto is entirely appropriate in such context

"By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty."

up
Voting closed 0

The gas piston system is analogous in operation to every other gas piston on the list that's banned. Of course, I point out that there are gas pistons on the list but you ignore that and tell me that the gas piston isn't the impingement system of the default AR15. No shit. I didn't say it was. Nobody has said it was. It would be stupid to say it was. However, the AK and other gas piston systems are on the list and if you modify an AR15 to be more like the AK then you've made a gun that is duplicate in operation to the AK...which is banned. You want to develop a new system for ejecting shells and chambering rounds that isn't on the list, then you'd sell a bunch until the law was updated. But any arguments in favor of a gas piston AR15 in light of this new enforcement of the current law are invalid.

Furthermore, the same person making the determination that "duplicate" refers to operating system and not folding stocks has stated that her determination is to prevent sales and not strip ownership of current owners. So, no, you're wrong again. No one who owns one currently is a felon. Of course, she's enabling your continued ownership of your weapons by her ability to make determinations of what the intent of the law is (sales, not ownership) but somehow you ignore THAT in favor of now being the downtrodden waif who is at her whim...when her whim is in your favor. YOU ARE NOT A VICTIM HERE even though you want to play one on TV.

Further to that, you think that if you're a felon then you would have no reason to abide by other laws or parts of the law? That's like saying that because you speed on the highway you never feel any proclivity to stop at red lights or not run over pedestrians. Or it's like saying that if you don't believe in a retributive god then there's nothing to keep you from wanting to murder everyone. Except that's not how people work. They don't break every law just because they broke one (and as noted above, you haven't broken one because she's not taking owned guns away).

Every single one of your arguments is a complete misconstruction of the problem or complete ignorance of reality in order to present this as the worst possible situation for you. I'm betting it's because you realize that everything that's occurring is perfectly legitimate and just not what you want...so you're throwing a tantrum like a child.

If anything, your lack of ability to remain in reality on this issue suggests you have even less justification for having a lethal weapon at your disposal.

up
Voting closed 0

The AG has said she will not prosecute AT THIS TIME. She has not said she will not prosecute period. You are operating in a fantasy that is reliant on a politicians word and prosecutorial discretion. The AG is not the only prosecutor in the state.

By her definition all semi auto firearms are banned and all firearms currently in possession are felonies.

"the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure. "

up
Voting closed 0

A piston is not only unique to the AK. M1 garands also operate with a piston. Grandads gun is a felony! Glad I am not alone! The prison system sure will be crowded!

up
Voting closed 0

"YOU ARE NOT A VICTIM HERE even though you want to play one on TV."

Every person who has had their rights revoked by this edict, including my children, are victims here.

up
Voting closed 0

A piston operated AR15 has very little in common with an AK.

It seems to be the AGs argument EVERY semi auto firearm is illegal. You are good with that?

Every firearm that operates with a piston

Every firearm that is gas impingement

Every firearm that is blowback.

All banned. No 1911s, no Garands, no Saigas, no semi auto birdguns produced after 94. Of course the law states nothing of the sort and the AG can get bent.

up
Voting closed 0

A few positive headlines in the state's Democratic newsletter. Some tummy rubbing for low-fo voters. Zero impact on limiting large capacity detachable magazine weapons.

Good job, Maura!

up
Voting closed 0

Whether or not you care about guns at all, you should be outraged by this overreach and complete absence of due process. You want something changed, there should be a bill signed in to law. This is scary and way bigger than firearms.

up
Voting closed 0

I think you have to make the argument this order is overreach based on the authorities of the office and the law on the books. Her order is saying the intent of the law on the books was to stop the sales of these weapons too. The AG's office is specifically empowered with consumer protection.

Her order can be challenged in court. I think Gun Owners of America/NRA will if they think her order is on weak legal authority.

What's your argument?

up
Voting closed 0

The AG is claiming that ALL firearms that share common parts and operating systems are now banned. That means things like the M1 Garand (shares parts with the M14) and even 10/22 plinking guns are now a felony to posses. Also all semi auto pistols are now banned by this ruling.

If all MA gun owners are now felons why should we follow the law?

Weak legal authority? Without a doubt.

up
Voting closed 0

Have you sped on the highway?

So, then what keeps you from running over pedestrians downtown?

up
Voting closed 0

If my firearm is already a felony to posses why would I care about the mags?

The two are not equivalent. There is no victim of modern instead of 30 year old magazines.

If the AG decides to prosecute we are all going to jail for a while. Might as well make it worthwhile.

up
Voting closed 0

Double tap

up
Voting closed 0

They made a law that defines an AW. She should not be able to arbitrarily change that definition.

By the way, this is the same legislature that set up the wonderful taxi regulatory rules, and won't allow Boston to establish it's own speed limits or liquor licenses.

Your elected reps really just aren't very good at their jobs.

up
Voting closed 0

Why bother following ANY MA gun law if we are all already felons in waiting for Healey to decide to prosecute us?

Pmags here I come!

up
Voting closed 0

You're free to commit murder now that you're a de facto felon, right?

up
Voting closed 0

Because a piece of plastic with a metal spring is equivalent to murder.

The state can arrest 200k people at will at this point for firearms laws. Why should we at this point care about the law? We are already felons.

up
Voting closed 0