Last edited Thu Jul 21, 2016, 01:04 AM - Edit history (1)
Her letter in the Boston Globe where she announced the new regulation:
Thus the test are as follows:
1, If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or
2. if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon,
Lets address the problems with both "tests".
1. gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon. The AR-15 the AK-47 and the SKS all use a gas system. Gas from the burning of powder is tapped to operate the mechanism. This system is the most common form of semi-automatic rifle system used today. It was invented by John Browning before 1900. The Gas system is lighter then any recoil system, given the same ammunition (Through NOT as reliable) and can handle full power rounds (unlike blow back system which can only handle relativity weak pistol rounds). Thus gas system is the preferred semi automatic rifle system.
Thus to say you want to ban an AR-15 operating system, means to ban ALL semiautomatic rifles. Rifles rounds, even the weak 7.92x33 that started the assault rifle movement, is to powerful for any blow-back system, thus you have to use either a Gas System or the much heavier Recoil system.
Now, if the AG means how the bolt locks, both the AK-47 and the AR-15 use a rotary bolt to lock behind the round, but so does a Winchester PUMP model 1300 shotgun. Is that what she means by "Operating system"? Or is it a combination of the bolt and the gas system? But that excludes the SKS which uses a"tilting bolt" instead of the AR and AK. This problem show how vague this regulation is.
2. if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon??? What is meant by this? Most weapons today are tapped for scopes. The newer versions of the AR-15 and even the AK series have the Picatinny rail (either orginal or retrofit).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picatinny_rail
Many bolt action rifles are now using detachable magazine for many hunters have been through the military and have been trained on such magazines. The M14 was the last US rifle capable of using stripper clips (In the US Army today, M16 ammunition often comes in stripper clips, but the clips are used to fill detachable magazines NOT the rifle directly. Direct loading of rifles using such clips could be done with the M14 and the M1903 Springfield).
Thus if a bolt action rifle uses an AR-15 magazine is it banned under this regulation? If that same rifle uses a scope, that can also be used on an AR-15 is the bolt action rifle banned? What if we are taking about a single shot rifle that uses trigger mechanism of the AK (Which is the M1 and M14 trigger system, Kalashnikov was NOT going to reinvent the wheel when he designed the AK, he used already existing and proven systems in the AK and the US had spend millions on developing the M1 trigger and remains, in many people minds, the best rifle trigger for a semi-automatic and automatic weapon).
My Opinion
The State did NOT ban semi-automatic rifles, so the Attorney General can not do so by regulation. On the other hand the Attorney General can enforce State law by writing regulations that clarify what the State Legislature did ban. The problem is once the Attorney General starts to issue such regulation, it must be clear on their face that they are NOT doing what the State Legislature did not do themselves. We thus return to the regulations being a combination of mechanisms, that the SKS, Ak-47 and AR-15 fit under but not guns that clearly were NOT banned. The above two rules are to vague, on their face, to do so. The courts can NOT fix that problem. The Attorney General can by making it clear what she meant by those two rules, but will require extensive work and I suspect she is NOT going to do it, for I suspect she has done so and realized it is impossible.
On the other hand she appears to want to appear to be addressing the problem of the mass shooting in Florida. She wants to appear to be doing something. In my opinion this is her doing SOMETHING, knowing the gun manufacturers will ignore her letter and she will do NOTHING against the gun manufacturers for she knows she will lose. Thus instead of issuing an actual regulation and requiring gun dealers in her state to follow those regulations, she is writing a letter to the Boston Newspaper that she is writing letters to gun manufacturers to do what they will NOT do (i.e. stop selling these types of guns in Massachusetts).
Some times you have to enjoy politicians trying to show how tough they are, but doing things that in the long term mean nothing.
By the way, is she expecting a campaign contributions from the gun manufacturers? They should pay her, this has hit all of the gun nut groups and has had to have increases sales of AR and AK type weapons. Is she planning to run for Governor and need the Campaign contributions? The Gun makers should contribute to her campaign, it will increase gun sales tremendously AND will have no long affect in reducing gun sales.
= new reply since forum marked as read
