The day after Omar Mateen fatally shot 49 people in an Orlando,
Florida, nightclub last June, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura
Healey said she had a surprise.
“The next day I went in and asked my team could (Mr.) Mateen have purchased that weapon here in Massachusetts, and I was surprised to learn that even though the sale of that weapon was banned, 10,000 of these (assault-style weapons) were sold last year,” Ms. Healey said in an interview.
On July 20, Ms. Healey did something about it, issuing an enforcement
notice that declared that weapons with a similar internal firing
mechanisms as banned weapons and interchangeable key components with
banned guns would also be considered copycat weapons.
That also caused surprise.
“When it first broke, the phone at the office as you can probably imagine was totally ringing off the hook,” said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Northboro-based Gun Owners’ Action League.
“It was a total surprise, she’s actually telling us that we’ve all committed felonies, she’s just not coming after us.”
Now the issue is in the courts, with a Worcester gun shop as the lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit. Familiar battle lines are being drawn: Second Amendment issues, issues on enforceability of gun laws, debates on guns as a public and/or personal safety issue, and the role of elected officials, the judiciary and the legislature all are part of the debate.
“There is no legal basis for her to say, ‘I will change the law and apply it July 20 going forward,’ and that’s what she did,” said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearms trade group that is a plaintiff alongside Pullman Arms Inc. of Worcester. A representative of Pullman Arms referred questions on the litigation to the NSSF.
Mr. Wallace agreed with Mr. Keane's assessment.
“This was an unprecedented event, no one has ever done this before,”
Mr. Wallace said. “Suddenly overnight, a single government official with
no hearings, no input from legislators, wakes up and decides that she
makes laws, she makes the rules, and retroactively turned hundreds of
thousands of people into felons.”
But Ms. Healey steadfastly defended her actions as enforcing laws already on the books, said she consulted with many legislators and has widespread support.
“This is not a fight about the Second Amendment,” Ms. Healey said. “There are lines we draw all the time around the kinds of weapons that we allow people to have. We don’t allow them to go out and buy machine guns. We don’t allow people to walk around with grenades or plant them on their property. When a state legislature takes action like ours did in 1998, it is for good reason, and it is a law that is on the books and it’s one that I’m going to enforce right now as attorney general.”
The Massachusetts assault weapons ban of 1998 mirrors the federal ban that Congress allowed to expire in 2004, and prohibits the sale of specific weapons such as the AK-47 and Colt AR-15, as well as - crucial to the current debate - copies or duplicates of those weapons. The legislation also includes a list of features - everything from a grenade launcher and a bayonet mount to a folding or telescoping stock - two or more of which make certain semi-automatic guns assault weapons.
Ms. Healey argues that gunmakers have essentially tweaked their design to eliminate features to make them “state compliant” or “copycat” weapons without a few features but just as deadly as the assault weapon models specifically included in the ban.
To eliminate this “loophole,” as Ms. Healey called it in a Boston Globe opinion piece, the attorney general July 20 issued an enforcement notice that announced two new tests in addition to the so-called "two-feature test" to determine whether a weapon was banned as a copycat weapon.
“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,” according to the Attorney General’s office.
“For so long the gun lobby has said, ‘We don’t need more laws, we
don’t need more regulations, just enforce the laws that are on the
books,’ ” Ms. Healey said. “So that’s what I set out to do, enforce an
existing assault weapons ban - and they cry foul.”
In a Sept. 22 lawsuit, those challenging Ms. Healey allege the enforcement notice is “unconstitutionally vague, invalid and unenforceable” and seeks that it be declared as such. The lawsuit alleges that Ms. Healey acted unilaterally to essentially change 18 years of agreement and understanding about what constituted a banned gun in Massachusetts, overstepping her authority. The lawsuit also claims that the new tests are too vague, with the similarity test potentially outlawing all semi-automatic weapons with the exception of those on a list of exempt weapons which was compiled by the attorney general's office.
And while Ms. Healey explicitly stated in public remarks, on her office’s website and in the notice itself that it would not affect gun owners or dealers who owned, possessed or transferred an assault weapon (as defined under the new criteria) before July 20, GOAL and NSSF both are arguing that Ms. Healey “turned hundreds of thousands of law-abiding families and individuals who own guns into ‘felons in waiting’ overnight,” as one GOAL blogpost says.
“She decided not to enforce it against people, but even by saying that, she’s still saying that it’s a crime,” Mr. Wallace said. “Also, people need to realize that all (gun) transactions have taken place with the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. The attorney general is telling us that for 18 years, the state of Massachusetts, which is not gun friendly at all, has been approving these things and they’ve been wrong for 18 years.”
Ms. Healey repeatedly emphasized she was not trying to take away anybody’s guns. Asked about the rollout of the enforcement notice, she said she gave fair notice and has worked with gun owners and dealers to answer any questions and provide more information as requested.
“This has been the law for 18 years, how much notice did one need?" she asked rhetorically.
Her actions did cause concern not just among gun advocates.
“We are particularly concerned that your Enforcement Notice was
issued unilaterally, with very little if any, advance notice for
licensed gun dealers and lawful gun owners to adequately prepare for
this new interpretation of the 1998 assault weapons ban,” a July 23
letter from 58 lawmakers, including 18 Democrats, said. “We believe your
directive raises far more questions than it answers.”
“I do think it was a bit of an overstretch,” said state Sen. Anne M. Gobi, D-Spencer. “I think that unfortunately it happened so quickly, it put a lot of gun owners as well as the businesses...it put many in my community that sell guns, put many of them in a very awkward position because they had been selling them for the last 20 years. Now they were being told they should not have been selling them.”
Ms. Healey noted that she had lawmakers supporting her as well, including several former attorneys general. Her announcement of the enforcement notice included statements of support from the president of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation, Boston Police Commissioner William Evans, District Attorneys Daniel F. Conley and Marian T. Ryan, and gun control advocates.
But while questions of authority, Constitutional rights and more await decision by the courts, Ms. Healey said she is already pleased with the results of her action.
“The good news is sales of these assault weapons have stopped in the state,” Ms. Healey said.
“The next day I went in and asked my team could (Mr.) Mateen have purchased that weapon here in Massachusetts, and I was surprised to learn that even though the sale of that weapon was banned, 10,000 of these (assault-style weapons) were sold last year,” Ms. Healey said in an interview.
That also caused surprise.
“When it first broke, the phone at the office as you can probably imagine was totally ringing off the hook,” said Jim Wallace, executive director of the Northboro-based Gun Owners’ Action League.
“It was a total surprise, she’s actually telling us that we’ve all committed felonies, she’s just not coming after us.”
Now the issue is in the courts, with a Worcester gun shop as the lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit. Familiar battle lines are being drawn: Second Amendment issues, issues on enforceability of gun laws, debates on guns as a public and/or personal safety issue, and the role of elected officials, the judiciary and the legislature all are part of the debate.
“There is no legal basis for her to say, ‘I will change the law and apply it July 20 going forward,’ and that’s what she did,” said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a firearms trade group that is a plaintiff alongside Pullman Arms Inc. of Worcester. A representative of Pullman Arms referred questions on the litigation to the NSSF.
Mr. Wallace agreed with Mr. Keane's assessment.
But Ms. Healey steadfastly defended her actions as enforcing laws already on the books, said she consulted with many legislators and has widespread support.
“This is not a fight about the Second Amendment,” Ms. Healey said. “There are lines we draw all the time around the kinds of weapons that we allow people to have. We don’t allow them to go out and buy machine guns. We don’t allow people to walk around with grenades or plant them on their property. When a state legislature takes action like ours did in 1998, it is for good reason, and it is a law that is on the books and it’s one that I’m going to enforce right now as attorney general.”
The Massachusetts assault weapons ban of 1998 mirrors the federal ban that Congress allowed to expire in 2004, and prohibits the sale of specific weapons such as the AK-47 and Colt AR-15, as well as - crucial to the current debate - copies or duplicates of those weapons. The legislation also includes a list of features - everything from a grenade launcher and a bayonet mount to a folding or telescoping stock - two or more of which make certain semi-automatic guns assault weapons.
Ms. Healey argues that gunmakers have essentially tweaked their design to eliminate features to make them “state compliant” or “copycat” weapons without a few features but just as deadly as the assault weapon models specifically included in the ban.
To eliminate this “loophole,” as Ms. Healey called it in a Boston Globe opinion piece, the attorney general July 20 issued an enforcement notice that announced two new tests in addition to the so-called "two-feature test" to determine whether a weapon was banned as a copycat weapon.
“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,” according to the Attorney General’s office.
In a Sept. 22 lawsuit, those challenging Ms. Healey allege the enforcement notice is “unconstitutionally vague, invalid and unenforceable” and seeks that it be declared as such. The lawsuit alleges that Ms. Healey acted unilaterally to essentially change 18 years of agreement and understanding about what constituted a banned gun in Massachusetts, overstepping her authority. The lawsuit also claims that the new tests are too vague, with the similarity test potentially outlawing all semi-automatic weapons with the exception of those on a list of exempt weapons which was compiled by the attorney general's office.
And while Ms. Healey explicitly stated in public remarks, on her office’s website and in the notice itself that it would not affect gun owners or dealers who owned, possessed or transferred an assault weapon (as defined under the new criteria) before July 20, GOAL and NSSF both are arguing that Ms. Healey “turned hundreds of thousands of law-abiding families and individuals who own guns into ‘felons in waiting’ overnight,” as one GOAL blogpost says.
“She decided not to enforce it against people, but even by saying that, she’s still saying that it’s a crime,” Mr. Wallace said. “Also, people need to realize that all (gun) transactions have taken place with the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security. The attorney general is telling us that for 18 years, the state of Massachusetts, which is not gun friendly at all, has been approving these things and they’ve been wrong for 18 years.”
Ms. Healey repeatedly emphasized she was not trying to take away anybody’s guns. Asked about the rollout of the enforcement notice, she said she gave fair notice and has worked with gun owners and dealers to answer any questions and provide more information as requested.
“This has been the law for 18 years, how much notice did one need?" she asked rhetorically.
Her actions did cause concern not just among gun advocates.
“I do think it was a bit of an overstretch,” said state Sen. Anne M. Gobi, D-Spencer. “I think that unfortunately it happened so quickly, it put a lot of gun owners as well as the businesses...it put many in my community that sell guns, put many of them in a very awkward position because they had been selling them for the last 20 years. Now they were being told they should not have been selling them.”
Ms. Healey noted that she had lawmakers supporting her as well, including several former attorneys general. Her announcement of the enforcement notice included statements of support from the president of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation, Boston Police Commissioner William Evans, District Attorneys Daniel F. Conley and Marian T. Ryan, and gun control advocates.
But while questions of authority, Constitutional rights and more await decision by the courts, Ms. Healey said she is already pleased with the results of her action.
“The good news is sales of these assault weapons have stopped in the state,” Ms. Healey said.
No comments:
Post a Comment