Monday, August 20, 2012

Why do Massachusetts Gun Control Laws Fail to Keep Assault Weapons Out of the State?

Enterprise News reports

They are military-grade guns – the gun of choice for many terrorist groups. They can fire up to 60 rounds per minute, and are meant for “destruction,” police said.

And they’re here.

State and Brockton police confiscated two AK-47-type weapons and a high-capacity magazine Tuesday night in a Brockton apartment. Police come across weapons like these about once a month, said Lt. Paul Bonanca, and the gun’s potential to cause harm can’t be understated.

“You could spray a room (with bullets),” he said. “It’s not what we want to see here on the street.” Police would not comment on the possible reasons why the guns were being kept in Brockton. The weapon’s destructiveness speaks for itself.

“I don’t think there’s any other reason. ... It’s a weapon intended for more destruction,” Bonanca said.
In The Bay State it's illegal to own these guns and extended magazines. Why do they keep popping up then? Obvioulsy they're bought elsewhere and brought in.

The solution:  Massachusetts-type gun control laws in every state.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.



    Look at the picture mikeb, that's a mini-14 magazine stuffed in the AK-47 clone.

    Are the cops so stupid that they don't realize that? Are they just trying to present a picture that's scary looking for idiots who know nothing of firearms?

  2. Typical liberal responses. Gun control doesn't work so we need more gun control. Maybe if they ban more guns that are used in less than 2% of gun crimes, the crime rate will go down.

  3. The solution: The best elements of the laws of Utah, Arizona, and Vermont in all states.

  4. In The Bay State it's illegal to own these guns and extended magazines. Why do they keep popping up then? Obvioulsy [sic] they're bought elsewhere and brought in.

    The solution: Massachusetts-type gun control laws in every state.


    Yeah, let me take a crack at that one. It's not illegal for a licensed individual to own AR-15s or AK clones in MA, period. The only effect of the MA AWB is that we have to remove two cosmetic features (bayonet lug and flash hider), and 10+ round mags must have been manufactured before a certain date in 1994 (there are literally millions of these).

    So, when you say they're "obviously bought elsewhere and brought in," you are completely wrong. Few people go out of state to buy rifles, and I can get them two other ways: going to the local MA gun store and buying any slightly modified AR or AK I want, or buying a lower receiver through an FFL, and getting every other part mail order. If you don't believe me, go to and look at all the good stuff for sale.

    Again, this is a case of you having no idea about the things you want to ban, or the laws you want to enact. Get MA-style AWBs in every state, and we just have to grind off the bayo lug and install a muzzle brake instead of a flash hider.

    I live in a town adjacent to Boston and I legally possess all the "assault weapons" I want. You people so clueless with this stuff.

  5. I have said this before, there is simply no way to rid this country, or the world that matter, from guns PERIOD! All the laws in the world wont work for this very reason. If you ban them, criminals will always have access to them. Black market will be the new normal and more unarmed will die. PERIOD!

    We need more PROPER gun control. Let all those who will qualify, carry them. Even up the odds, give the criminal be at odds to their activity and rethink their actions by making them realize they face great injury or certain death. And those that commit crimes with guns face the death penalty by a firing squad.

  6. Mikeb, here's an example of why I hate your stupid proposals:

    Massachusetts requires a firearms license to own and carry pepper spray. We're not talking about mace. This is jalapeno sauce in a spritzer bottle. My step-daughter is moving to that state for school. If she took the pepper spray that her mother and I got her a year ago with her, she could face two years in jail and a fine if she got caught.

    You've heard it from others, and you'll hear it from me: You're opposed to good citizens protecting themselves. You don't care about safety. You want us all to be dependent on the police and other government agencies. You're either so damned full of yourself that you can't see straight, or you are evil. Which one is it?

    1. No, I'm opposed to unfit people easily pawning themselves off as responsible gun owners. I think we should make every effort to ensure that when someone owns guns legally, they are qualified to do so.

      Why would you oppose that?

    2. 1. I showed you yet another example of the stupidity of Massachusetts laws, and yet, you made no effort to step back. Am I to understand that you support those laws entirely? If so, are you willing to provide security for my step-daughter and everyone else in Massachusetts who isn't allowed to carry any kind of self-defense tool?

      2. Good citizens are qualified. Period. People who have no convictions for violent crime have the right to own and carry guns. Period.

      3. The laws that you propose would only affect people who abide by the law. Those proposals would have no affect on dangerous people. I oppose your faith, and I oppose your desperate efforts to take away the rights of good people because of what a few bad people do.

  7. Mass gun control laws don't keep these guns out of the state because the laws don't prohibit purchase, ownership or possession of these guns by licensed individuals. Does that answer your question?

    Grind off the bayo lug, replace the flash suppressor with a muzzle brake, and get pre-ban 30-round mags and you're golden. You people thought you were going to eliminate "assault weapons" in MA... suckers. We outsmarted your stupid laws as always.

  8. You can spray the room with any non military look alike weapon as well. A 3 shot pump shot gun with 00 buck is a fast reloader with a pocket full of shell and 9 to 15 pellets per shot that is the size of a .32. A lever action 8 shot hunting rifle can spray in excess of 60 rounds per second and is also a fast reloader. Heck you can do the same with a 6 shot revolver and a pocket full of speed loaders. And NONE of these look like a military replica.

    Those non full auto weapons shown above are even less powerful than those we bring down a deer, moose or elk with. Fire off a .308 bolt action hunting rifle into a crowd and kill 5 or more with a single shot.

    The AK above is likely a AK47 which uses a 7.62X39 and is dwarfed by the .308, 30-06 .300, .270 mag and more. The 7.62X39 is designed to wound a 175 pound man. The hunting rifles are designed to KILL a 1000 pound moose, elk and deer. The AK is a great varmit rifle and small game hunter. If you want to kill many without much ammo, use the traditional hunting rifle.

    You think your going to take those rifles away from hunters? If you ban those "scary looking" rifles, your mass murders are just going to use even more higher powered hunting rifles and just kill even more with less shots.

    Think about that for a moment!

    1. You're right Texas. There is too little difference between these so-called assault weapons and others that are acceptable. That's why all guns need to be controlled and all gun owners too.

    2. And yet you keep saying that your proposals would be only a minor interference.

    3. But the single, and most important point is this Mike, you cant control like that. It isn't possible, never has been or will be. Like I have said many times already, too many guns in the world and there will be many more.

      What needs to be controlled is the criminals, or rather the punishment of them once they become criminals. Not this revolving door justice system we have now. People will be put in jail for life for crimes that don't injure physically anyone like money crimes, but murders are let out all the time. Its a fact of life that nobody is a criminal until they are. When they become one, and those that have taken a life deserves to have theirs taken.

      People also have a right to freedom, life, liberty and happiness in a free country. Which we are by natural law, but your proposals don't respect that born with laws as well as some other countries. I am not only given and guaranteed this right, but I am also responsible myself for this right to life by defending myself, the liberty to choose how I live freely, and the choice to be happy about what I choose.

      You can even freely choose to become a criminal, but when you do, there is a price to pay. That is the nature of freedom, and it comes at a cost. History to present, people have paid dearly up to and including the giving of their lives to protect my freedom. What you propose Mike, is the summary dismissal of my freedom and that simply will not stand and never will.

  9. Three glaring problems with MikeB's "solution".

    (1) We cannot stop organized crime from "importing" (smuggling) guns into the country any more than we can stop illegal drug smuggling.

    (2) If smuggling isn't someone's forte, then go buy $20 in parts from your local hardware store and make your own single shot firearm. All you need is a threaded galvanized water pipe, a threaded coupling, a threaded plug, and a nail (for the firing pin). If you don't like using a rock to actuate the firing pin, then you can spend a little extra time fashioning a wood stock and making a crude "hammer" with metal strap and some rubber bands. It isn't rocket science.

    (3) If someone is bent on mass killing, a two gallon can of gasoline and a match can kill a lot more people than a semi-automatic rifle. So can a truck with a snow plow blade in the front. (A cartoon episode of The Simpsons actually portrayed that.)

  10. I hate to break your heart Mikey but those two rifles do not qualify as assault weapons under the old federal ban, which is what MA has now. I don't know why the piggies took them, but they're both perfectly legal to own here in the peep's pub.

    This leads me to my second point - we had this exact law for ten years - just what you're suggesting - and not a single study was able to prove or even infer that it had any influence on the use of "assault weapons" or firearms at all in crime.

    1. Your second point is made-up bullshit. There have been studies and surveys, but you just don't like what they say.

    2. Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices. The number of those guns used in crimes dropped because they were fewer available." A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of Brady Campaign's claim that the ban was responsible for violent crime's decline.

      The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control schemes, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence." A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small.

      The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.

      A study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that neither the assault weapons ban nor the ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets had reduced gun murders.