HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Nuclear Unicorn » Journal
Page: 1

Nuclear Unicorn

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Sep 16, 2009, 07:33 PM
Number of posts: 19,497

Journal Archives

I am uncompromising in my support for SANDERS!

So there!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going out to get some fried chicken.
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Sun Jul 31, 2016, 04:50 PM (3 replies)

This election is too weird

This is only my 3rd presidential election I'll be voting in so I can't claim to have the wisdom of the ages. Take that for what it's worth.

My dad has always been a lifelong Democrat. Union member. Straight party ticket.

He's going for Trump.

My FIL is the straight laced businessman. Archetype of the GOP bedrock.

He'll be sitting this election out.
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Mon Jul 25, 2016, 02:58 PM (3 replies)

The loophole in the Mass. assault weapons ban

The following is a press release from the Attorney General of Massachusetts --

The loophole in the Mass. assault weapons ban


The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban Congress allowed to expire in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific weapons like the Colt AR-15 and AK-47 and explicitly bans “copies or duplicates” of those weapons. But gun manufacturers have taken it upon themselves to define what a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon is. They market “state compliant” copycat versions of their assault weapons to Massachusetts buyers. They sell guns without a flash suppressor or folding or telescoping stock, for example, small tweaks that do nothing to limit the lethalness of the weapon.

That will end now. On Wednesday, we are sending a directive to all gun manufacturers and dealers that makes clear that the sale of these copycat assault weapons is illegal in Massachusetts. With this directive, we will ensure we get the full protection intended when lawmakers enacted our assault weapons ban, not the watered-down version of those protections offered by gun manufacturers.

The directive specifically outlines two tests to determine what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” of a prohibited weapon. If a gun’s operating system is essentially the same as that of a banned weapon, or if the gun has components that are interchangeable with those of a banned weapon, it’s a “copy” or “duplicate,” and it is illegal. Assault weapons prohibited under our laws cannot be altered in any way to make their sale or possession legal in Massachusetts.

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. In the dozen years since the federal assault weapons ban lapsed, only seven states have instituted their own assault weapons ban. Many of those bans have been challenged (unsuccessfully) by the gun industry, and we anticipate our directive may be too. But our job is to enforce state laws and to keep people safe. This directive does both.


Seems overly broad and will end up including weapons well outside the scope of the law. Moreover, it was decided by the AG's office, not the legislature. As such it seems ripe for judicial challenge.
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Wed Jul 20, 2016, 02:27 PM (45 replies)

Admittedly convoluted but honestly asked question, RE: registration laws

It is established case precedent that a person intent on using a gun to commit a crime cannot be charged with failing to register their gun because doing something would violate their 5th Amendment protections against being forced to incriminate themselves (Haynes v US)

But suppose someone intended to violate no law except the law requiring registration? What could they be charged with?
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Mon Jul 4, 2016, 04:04 PM (5 replies)
Go to Page: 1