There have been a few questions about what happened in the 2004 Reform Act in regards to “Assault Weapons” so I will try to give all concerned a statutory explanation. (This will not be a short post.)
As we all know the federal ban was scheduled to sunset in 2004 because the anti-civil rights crowd could not provide any evidence that the ban had any positive effects on gun crime. While GOAL was moving our reform bill through the State House, our opposition was going out of their minds because they were about to face a major public relations set back. As our bill went through the normal processes, the anti-civil rights organizations asked for an amendment changing the definitions law in Massachusetts.
At this time it is important to make it very clear that the Massachusetts Assault Weapons ban law was and is Chapter 140, Section 131M. That law never had any sunset clause in it at any time and does not mention the federal law at all. The only mention of the federal law is in the definitions section of the state laws.
Chapter 140: Section 131M. Assault weapon or large capacity feeding device not lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994; sale, transfer or possession; punishment
Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.
The two sections that the antis wanted to add were as follows.
SECTION 2.Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the figure "921(a)(30)", in line 21, the following words:- as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994.
SECTION 3. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the figure "(31)", in line 58, the following words:- as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994.
When GOAL was considering these amendments the first thing we had to consider was that the state law did not have a sunset clause in it and we did not have the votes to repeal the ban. Secondly, the state already referenced the federal definition within the state definition of “Assault Weapon” in Chapter 140, Section 121 and again we were not going to be able to remove it. The only thing the antis wanted to add to the state definition was the language “as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994”. Their spin on this was that without this amendment, the Massachusetts ban would expire along with the federal bill. This was absolute garbage!
When GOAL looked at these amendments and consulted some legal advisors our conclusion was that regardless if these amendments were allowed, it was likely that any Massachusetts liberal judge was going to rule that the state ban still included the definitions from the federal 1994 language. Even worse, if we didn’t allow the amendments and a judge thought it was now vague, it would be very likely that the judge would produce a ruling making things much worse.
The other part of their amendment dealt with Appendix A of the federal law 18 U.S.C. section 922. This appendix contained a list of hundreds of guns that were exempt from the ban. It was certainly fine with us if they wanted to make these exemptions clear. (The following link will bring you to the old law with the appendix intact. http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18USC922.html)
So the conclusion was:
1. Their argument that the state ban was going to sunset was simply a lie.
2. Their amendments would have no practical effect on the existing law.
3. Their amendments might actually save our members from getting caught in a messy court battle that would most likely make things worse than they are now.
4. If we fought against the amendments we would likely lose the whole bill and possibly have something nastier pass as a result.
So knowing we would only be faced with the status quo and the state ban was going to remain anyway, we agreed to their amendments. As a result, when the bill passed there was no change in the state law, there was no change in the state definition. The only downfall was that the antis were able to spin it in the Globe so it looked like they had successfully saved the ban in Massachusetts.
While that was a tough pill for me to swallow and I still get grief from our people around the country who believed the Globe and believe that I supported a ban, it is simply something people in my position have to expect now and then. Faced with the same decision and knowing I would still get hammered from some of our own, I would still make the same the decision. All you have to do is meet just one of the people that got their rights back as a result of that new law and you will see how the grief and lies are all worth it. Perhaps in a small way I understand how Wayne LaPierre feels when he has to make decisions knowing he is going to get attacked by his own people who simply don’t understand.
In any case, I hope this explains the situation.
I know some people are asking, if this true, why is Mitt still saying he signed a ban? Darn good question.
Chapter 140: Section 121. Firearms sales; definitions; antique firearms; application of law; exceptions
Section 121. As used in sections 122 to 131P, inclusive, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following meanings:-
“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
As we all know the federal ban was scheduled to sunset in 2004 because the anti-civil rights crowd could not provide any evidence that the ban had any positive effects on gun crime. While GOAL was moving our reform bill through the State House, our opposition was going out of their minds because they were about to face a major public relations set back. As our bill went through the normal processes, the anti-civil rights organizations asked for an amendment changing the definitions law in Massachusetts.
At this time it is important to make it very clear that the Massachusetts Assault Weapons ban law was and is Chapter 140, Section 131M. That law never had any sunset clause in it at any time and does not mention the federal law at all. The only mention of the federal law is in the definitions section of the state laws.
Chapter 140: Section 131M. Assault weapon or large capacity feeding device not lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994; sale, transfer or possession; punishment
Section 131M. No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.
The two sections that the antis wanted to add were as follows.
SECTION 2.Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the figure "921(a)(30)", in line 21, the following words:- as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994.
SECTION 3. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the figure "(31)", in line 58, the following words:- as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994.
When GOAL was considering these amendments the first thing we had to consider was that the state law did not have a sunset clause in it and we did not have the votes to repeal the ban. Secondly, the state already referenced the federal definition within the state definition of “Assault Weapon” in Chapter 140, Section 121 and again we were not going to be able to remove it. The only thing the antis wanted to add to the state definition was the language “as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994”. Their spin on this was that without this amendment, the Massachusetts ban would expire along with the federal bill. This was absolute garbage!
When GOAL looked at these amendments and consulted some legal advisors our conclusion was that regardless if these amendments were allowed, it was likely that any Massachusetts liberal judge was going to rule that the state ban still included the definitions from the federal 1994 language. Even worse, if we didn’t allow the amendments and a judge thought it was now vague, it would be very likely that the judge would produce a ruling making things much worse.
The other part of their amendment dealt with Appendix A of the federal law 18 U.S.C. section 922. This appendix contained a list of hundreds of guns that were exempt from the ban. It was certainly fine with us if they wanted to make these exemptions clear. (The following link will bring you to the old law with the appendix intact. http://trac.syr.edu/laws/18USC922.html)
So the conclusion was:
1. Their argument that the state ban was going to sunset was simply a lie.
2. Their amendments would have no practical effect on the existing law.
3. Their amendments might actually save our members from getting caught in a messy court battle that would most likely make things worse than they are now.
4. If we fought against the amendments we would likely lose the whole bill and possibly have something nastier pass as a result.
So knowing we would only be faced with the status quo and the state ban was going to remain anyway, we agreed to their amendments. As a result, when the bill passed there was no change in the state law, there was no change in the state definition. The only downfall was that the antis were able to spin it in the Globe so it looked like they had successfully saved the ban in Massachusetts.
While that was a tough pill for me to swallow and I still get grief from our people around the country who believed the Globe and believe that I supported a ban, it is simply something people in my position have to expect now and then. Faced with the same decision and knowing I would still get hammered from some of our own, I would still make the same the decision. All you have to do is meet just one of the people that got their rights back as a result of that new law and you will see how the grief and lies are all worth it. Perhaps in a small way I understand how Wayne LaPierre feels when he has to make decisions knowing he is going to get attacked by his own people who simply don’t understand.
In any case, I hope this explains the situation.
I know some people are asking, if this true, why is Mitt still saying he signed a ban? Darn good question.
Chapter 140: Section 121. Firearms sales; definitions; antique firearms; application of law; exceptions
Section 121. As used in sections 122 to 131P, inclusive, the following words shall, unless the context clearly requires otherwise, have the following meanings:-
“Assault weapon”, shall have the same meaning as a semiautomatic assault weapon as defined in the federal Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30) as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994, and shall include, but not be limited to, any of the weapons, or copies or duplicates of the weapons, of any caliber, known as: (i) Avtomat Kalashnikov (AK) (all models); (ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; (iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70); (iv) Colt AR-15; (v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR and FNC; (vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9 and M-12; (vi) Steyr AUG; (vii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and (viii) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as, or similar to, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; provided, however, that the term assault weapon shall not include: (i) any of the weapons, or replicas or duplicates of such weapons, specified in appendix A to 18 U.S.C. section 922 as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994, as such weapons were manufactured on October 1, 1993; (ii) any weapon that is operated by manual bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (iii) any weapon that has been rendered permanently inoperable or otherwise rendered permanently unable to be designated a semiautomatic assault weapon; (iv) any weapon that was manufactured prior to the year 1899; (v) any weapon that is an antique or relic, theatrical prop or other weapon that is not capable of firing a projectile and which is not intended for use as a functional weapon and cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts into an operable assault weapon; (vi) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than five rounds of ammunition; or (vii) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than five rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
