Bump Stock Ban

Final Action, November 2, 2017

The narrower Senate language was adopted in the final adopted version of the 2017 deficiency budget, essentially limiting the use of bump stocks to to people with a machine gun license.

SECTION 18. Section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “gun”, in line 100, the following words:- ; provided, however, that “machine gun” shall include bump stocks and trigger cranks.

SECTION 19. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the definition of “Assault weapon” the following definition:-

“Bump stock”, any device for a weapon that increases the rate of fire achievable with such weapon by using energy from the recoil of the weapon to generate a reciprocating action that facilitates repeated activation of the trigger.

SECTION 20. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the definition of “Shotgun” the following definition:-

“Trigger crank”, any device to be attached to a weapon that repeatedly activates the trigger of the weapon through the use of a lever or other part that is turned in a circular motion; provided, however, that “trigger crank” shall not include any weapon initially designed and manufactured to fire through the use of a crank or lever.

SECTION 21. Paragraph (o) of section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding the following sentence:- Clauses (i) and (ii) of this paragraph shall not apply to bump stocks and trigger cranks.

SECTION 52. The executive office of public safety and security shall notify individuals licensed under sections 122, 129B, and 131 of chapter 140 of the General Laws of the changes to
laws made in sections 18 to 21, inclusive, of this act and the effective date of those changes. The executive office shall also notify manufacturers of bump stocks and trigger cranks as defined in
sections 18 and 19 of this act, of the changes made under said sections 18 to 21, inclusive, and the effective date of those changes.

SECTION 53. Sections 18 to 21, inclusive, shall take effect 90 days after the effective date of this act; provided, however, that no person shall purchase, sell or offer for sale a bump stock or trigger crank as defined in sections 18 and 19 of this act after the effective date of this act. [NOTE: The act will become effective when the Governor signs it, because it includes an emergency preamble.]

The Massachusetts legislature is taking swift action to ban the devices that the Las Vegas shooter used to slaughter innocent concert-goers with a hail of bullets. Bump stocks are used to convert semi-automatic weapons into machine guns.

The House passed a version of a ban yesterday.  Today, the Senate passed a different version.

The House took a broad approach which, while stronger, might have had unintended consequences. The house defined a new crime for using any fire accelerating device — the language was added as Amendment 1 to a budget bill.

Whoever possesses, owns or offers for sale any device which attaches to a rifle, shotgun or firearm, except a magazine, that is designed to increase the rate of discharge of the rifle, shotgun or firearm or whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less than 3 nor more than 20 years.

Some have expressed concern that this broad language could sweep in relatively benign and modest adjustments to firearms.

The Senate language bans specifically the device used in Las Vegas and another similar device, basically saying that they amount to machine guns, ownership of which is already restricted. It states in amendment 5 to the Senate version of the budget bill:

“The term machine gun shall include bump stocks and trigger cranks.”

It adds two new definitions:

“Bump stock” any device for a semiautomatic firearm that increases the rate of fire achievable with such firearm by using energy from the recoil of the firearm to generate a reciprocating action that facilitates repeated activation of the trigger.

“Trigger Crank” any device to be attached to a semi-automatic firearm that repeatedly activates the trigger of the firearm through the use of a lever or other part that is turned in a circular motion, but does not include any firearm initially designed and manufactured to fire through the use of a crank or lever.

The alternative approaches were adopted in their respective branches with overwhelming majority roll call votes. The differing versions will be reconciled in a conference committee.

I was pleased to support the Senate ban and look forward to voting for final reconciled language which I expect will emerge swiftly. Hopefully, we will also soon see congressional action to put in place a national ban.

The official senate press release appears below.

BOSTON-Today the Massachusetts Senate voted to ban bump stock and trigger cranks and classify them under the same general law that governs machine guns.  The amendment, offered by Senator Cynthia Creem (D-Newton) establishes identical penalties, eighteen months to life in prison, for the use and possession of bump stocks and trigger cranks as current law holds for machine guns.

“Bump stocks and trigger cranks effectively change the nature of a semi-automatic weapon to make it into a machine gun.  There is no legitimate purpose for the use, sale, and possession of these devices or than to cause as much damage as possible,” said Senate President Stan Rosenberg (D-Amherst).  “Taking this action today protects public safety, provides ample time for residents to comply, and establishes sufficient penalties for violations.”

“This amendment is a necessary and appropriate response to the dangers inherent in these deadly devices,” said Senator Cynthia Creem. “The horror of the mass shootings in Las Vegas is unfortunately just the latest incident which calls out for the adoption of more sensible gun laws both here and nationally.”

The Senate’s bipartisan action means that those who are not appropriately licensed to possess devices that are in effect approximating a machine gun will be in violation of our state’s comprehensive firearms laws,” said Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester).

The amendment also instructs the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security to notify licensed owners and manufacturers of bump stocks and trigger cranks of the effective date of the changes.

Bump stocks use the recoil power of a weapon to effectively increase the rate of fire to make the gun a fully automatic assault weapon, which have been illegal in Massachusetts since 1994.  On Sunday October 1, fifty-eight people were murdered and hundreds injured by alleged killer Stephen Paddock at a Las Vegas country music festival.  Law enforcement found multiple bump stocks and trigger cranks in Paddock’s hotel room where the shooting originated.

The House of Representative passed a similar bump stock ban and the two versions will be reconciled before being sent to the Governor’s desk for his signature.

Response to Comments, Friday, October 13, 9PM

Thanks to all who have taken the time to comment including the many who were harshly critical — that’s OK and appreciated. We don’t mind a frank discussion on this website.

The only real question is which version of the ban will be implemented in final legislation. Both branches of the legislature voted overwhelmingly for a ban, although they took differing approaches.

The commentary in this thread gives good support to my conviction that the narrower and more specific Senate approach is preferable. I do believe, as many commenters stated, that we should know what we are doing with the legislation — at least we should know what devices we are affecting and the Senate language assures this.

I do take the points about grandfathering — what should happen to the outstanding bump stocks in Massachusetts? Open question under discussion.

To some of the broader points made: I fully understand the feeling of some law-abiding gun owners that they are being scapegoated with additional regulations that may not protect the public. I understand their resentment of “feel-good legislation” that only adds to the complexity of the legal rules that they must follow and places them at greater risk for inadvertent violation.

I also accept the point that the law-abiding gun owners are not the ones we need to worry about — they are well vetted. The people who kill people with guns on a daily basis are overwhelmingly criminals who could never lawfully acquire a weapon under the rules we have in place in Massachusetts.

Yet, I do support this legislation. I don’t think this legislation is a cure-all, but it is not useless. In the legislative process, there is always a balancing of considerations and an element of guess work. In this case, on the one hand, as many gun-owners have acknowledged, these devices have no particular legitimate value, so banning them is no great loss. On the other hand, there is a possibility that a rapid fire weapon could come into the control of the wrong person and be used to multiply harm in a crime. Even if we could be sure that all licensed gun owners would remain sane — and certainly, a healthy person can become depressed — a less healthy person in the same household could get access to the guns as happened in Sandy Hook. What are the odds that lives will be saved by the legislation? . . . hard to say, but I’m willing to make a judgment that the safety benefits of this legislation outweigh the harms.

To the 2A advocates, I’m sure we can agree that there is a line. They didn’t have machine guns in 1776. I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone complain about the machine gun ban. And this really is about banning something like machine guns. For most Americans, this is common sense — polling indicates it appears that among voters, healthy majorities of both Republicans and Democrats favor a ban. I understand the slippery slope concern, but every legislative decision could slide too far in the wrong direction in the future — we always have to draw lines.

Some expressed concern that the legislation is being rushed through hastily. Agreed. Both branches did move quickly to put a stake in the ground. But through the negotiation process that will now happen to reconcile the competing versions, I’m confident that we’ll end up with an adequately vetted product.

I do agree that we should be doing more on mental health issues, but no one should think this is a meaningful alternative to gun control. In fact, a strong effort to police all those who are mentally ill would be a great threat to personal liberty, much greater than that raised by deprivation of bumpstocks and machine guns. We will never have the ability to reach out into the population and readily identify people who are so dangerous that we need to intervene in their lives. We can make treatment available for those who want it, but we just can’t see many of the most dangerous people coming. There are millions of depressed people, but very few mass shooters. We’d probably have to have 20% of the population under mental health watch if we wanted to catch all the mass shooters and that would be terribly intrusive.

To those who believe that our existing gun laws simply need to be better enforced, please be assured that mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes are filling our urban jails — they are the most common mandatory sentence in some our Houses of Correction.

I’ve closed this thread to comment, but if you feel there is something that hasn’t been said, please feel free to reach out to me directly at william.brownsberger@masenate.gov.

Published by Will Brownsberger

Will Brownsberger is State Senator from the Second Suffolk and Middlesex District.

265 replies on “Bump Stock Ban”

  1. I don’t believe that we do enough to control the use and ownership of military style weapons. However, the bump stock ban is better than nothing.

    1. To amend my comments, I favor the House language because it applies more broadly to potential devices and attachments to firearms intended to increase the rate of fire. There is more safety in guarding against improvisations that serve no necessary civilian purpose.

      1. The house version is too broad. It is not limited to “devices or attachments” and doesn’t even specify the type of firearm to which it applies.

        Under the house version, switching to a better oil that enables one to more quickly open the action of a single-shot target rifle “increases the rate of fire” and therefore becomes a felony.

        This may not be the intent, but the senate version cleans up the imprecise language.

  2. “Bump stocks and trigger cranks effectively change the nature of a semi-automatic weapon to make it into a machine gun.” “…a fully automatic assault weapon, which have been illegal in Massachusetts since 1994.”
    In other words, the legislation does nothing.

  3. I say yes ban bump stocks, but leave other things alone. The difference between military rifles and civilians is military has full auto or three round burst. The laws in this state are strict enough. Law abiding citizens should not be punished because some crazy lunatic or criminal possesses illegal firearms and uses them in a crime. Just take a look at Chicago, there are more shootings and killings there because law abiding citizens cannot arm themselves but yet the criminals keep getting firearms. If people think banning a firearm is going to stop murders, you’re wrong. If we are gonna ban firearms let’s ban knives, cars, swimming pools, etc…

    1. Armand,

      Firearms flow into Chicago from other states where guns are easier to acquire due to less strict gun laws. The issue is not that IL has strict laws, but that surrounding states have lax ones.

  4. Both are infringement and unconstitutional like most of Massachusetts gun laws. Written by folks who don’t know anything about guns. Take a look at what your weapons bans have done for crime. Answer is nothing and in fact after Massachusetts adopted the federal ban crime went up. It’s unfortunate that our politicians continue to punish law abiding citizens. It worries me that you can take a legal item approved by Obamas administration and deem it illegal. The Weimar republic and then the Nazis did the same. Shameful.

    1. Gun-related deaths have been going up nationwide. And according to a CDC study, MA has the lowest gun-related death rate in the country (as of 2015, the latest data available): http://www.vpc.org/press/states-with-weak-gun-laws-and-higher-gun-ownership-lead-nation-in-gun-deaths-new-data-for-2015-confirms/

      Also, the Nazis did not simply make guns illegal. They made guns illegal for Jews, but made it easier for other groups to own guns. But those regulations weren’t key to their rise in power. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/

  5. Sen. Brownsberger,

    What kinds of “benign and modest adjustments” would be caught by the House version? Are there compelling reasons that such adjustments should be openly legal? Is there a compelling reason to keep a ban narrowly confined to the specific devices used in Las Vegas, rather than being proactive and banning any device that achieves the same effect?

    Should we be operating under the assumption that people may freely adjust firearms as they see fit, and adding on exemptions to that freedom to address abuses after the fact? Or should we presume that people should not be able to freely adjust firearms, and then add allowances for specific situations?

    1. From another constituent, to your point:

      For example, the amendment as currently written could be easily interpreted to ban ergonomic enhancements, recoil reducing weights, and other modifications that countless law-abiding gun owners utilize in order to make their firearms more user friendly and suitable for self-defense, competition, hunting, and even adapting to physical disability.

      1. Do those other adjustments have the effect of increasing the rate of discharge beyond what an average (as opposed to highly trained) gun user can achieve with their own rate of trigger pulls? If so, what is the justification for such an increase in rate for the average gun user?

    2. The language in the house bill could be interpreted to disallow replacement of springs in a firearm to bring it back to its original operating function. Like the suspension in a car, most firearms have springs in them that wear out. Once worn and replaced, it could be interpreted that the “rate of fire” was increased.

      Further, what exactly is an adjustment? It could be installing a lighter trigger for competition purposes to gain accuracy.

      I would hope that these aren’t the people we want to throw in jail for years, especially considering that a lawful gun owner in Massachusetts has obtained a license from their local police department after having gone through an extensive background check and training.

      1. Thank you for that explanation. Would the House version be acceptable if it clarified increasing the rate of fire “beyond its original rate”?

  6. Yes, use the senate version over the house version.

    The house version is *far* too broad and with the current attorney general would be a disaster for legal firearm owners.

    1. Although, frankly, MA should just wait for this to be settled at a Federal level. Any deviance from eventual Federal regulations or revised Federal law will eventually just invite costly litigation that MA should avoid and save some taxpayer dollars better spent of infrastructure or health care.

  7. not sure I understand how more regulation will have any effect on there types of events. intent people will continually come up with ways to achieve their goals. also, fyi: a skilled marksman can keep up with the rate of fire a bump stock can create – further, a bump stock on its own does not necessarily create a rapid fire weapon. it takes much practice & skill to use one successfully. unless we have the ability to fully remove human nature, there isn’t any way to prevent tragedies from occurring. and no, more laws are not the answer – assault, murder, etc are already illegal, remember?

  8. The more specific versions are definitely better than the original which had this as my and many other’s main concern… “This broad language could be easily interpreted to ban match grade triggers, ergonomic enhancements, recoil reducing weights, muzzle brakes, and other modifications that countless law-abiding gun owners utilize in order to make their firearms more user friendly and suitable for self-defense, competition, hunting, and even adapting to physical disability.”

  9. i’m very happy to see the language being changed to be far more specific to bump stocks than the house bill. I could see a nightmare coming for any legal gun owners in the state of Massachusetts with the original wording. Once again I feel this is a waste of time mass murder is illegal criminals don’t follow laws.

  10. I am a gun owner, sportsman, and a father. I own a sporting rifle that a bump-stuck could be attached to, and I have to say that it is absurd that such a device was ever legal anywhere in this country. I fully support the ban, but have strong reservations as to some of the additional language regarding modifications that would allow for sweeping powers to be given to the attorney general with whom I have differing opinions.

  11. Explain to me and everyone else in this state how bump stocks would have prevented this situation? It’s an object not a person. Banning an object doesn’t solve the issue. You must use logic instead of your emotions.

  12. While we’re at it, how come law abiding MA citizens keep having to pay the price with more and more restrictions on the 2nd amendment? We have one of the best processes on applying for a firearms license in both strict/fairness aspects. Why do we keep having to pay for other states and their lax attitude?

  13. Senator,

    What about the thousands of residents who will be forced to give up their property? Plenty of people bought them legally…

    I personally think this is a knee-jerk reaction and does nothing but punish Massachusetts gun owners. Like many gun regulations in this state, it was done without much thought to the law abiding residents of the commonwealth.

  14. The House wording is too general. As a responsible gun owner I would support the Senate’s wording.

  15. Although i do not necessarily support a “full” ban on these devices, classifying them in the category of machine gun is most likley proper. I believe folks who have machine gun licenses in MA should be allowed to posses these devices. I would add that there may be folks who have a regular LTC and also own these devices, which is currently legal. I do not support forcing those individuals to turn over, destroy, or sell those devices they paid high dollar for. That would be a clear violation of ex post facto laws. I support the senate language strongly and fiercly oppose the house language. Some modifications to firearms actually improve saftey and accuracy, and under the house language that could be deemed a felony. I appreciate keeping the focus on automatic fire and machine gun type devices.

  16. I agree with the bump stock. I do believe that there should be no grandfathering of bump stocks. A ban is useless if they are grandfatheredin.

    1. Respectfully, granfathering them in is the only lawful option for the legislature. We have ex post facto laws for a reason. The government cannot decide one day it doesnt like your lawful actions and vote to make them criminal and prosecute you. Forcing a turn in is a slippery slope we dont want to go down.

  17. And how are the current lawful owners of bump stocks in this state to be compensated for their property once the items are deemed illegal to possess??

  18. As a Second Amendment supporter who lives in Massachusetts I find that Massachusetts gun laws are the most confusing laws in the country when it comes to firearms. The laws we have are to broad and dance around wording making anyone who isn’t a lawyer unable to understand them. With that being said the Senate legislation would be clearer to legal firearms owners. However these laws aren’t going to stop the criminals out there. We already have laws on the books that aren’t being enforced. Why are we adding tools to the tool box when the ones we have aren’t being used?

  19. Then ban bump stocks and trigger cranks then, its to unclear and vague . I dont want small modications to bolts and guns to be legaly risky.

  20. Considering a belt fed machine gun was used,ALONG with another full auto firearm from a second individual.I think the real tragedy is you are banning a toy,that can be replicated with a belt loop or made homemade from a strong rubber band ,from a knee jerk reaction.,essentialit punishing a lot of people that are not guilty of ANY crimes while the LeftistProgressive,liberal ,ANTIFA Communists doing all these mass shootings get exactly what they wanted to start with,NO FREEDOM.These Leftists are wound ill by Liberal media to go KILL CONSERVATIVES AND when it happens the News laughs about the possibility of Trump Supporters dying before starting to shed alligator tears.It insults my intelligence,apparently you have none or you would see that FIRST THIS IS YOUR LAST TERM IN OFFICE AND SECONDLY NOE LIBERALS KNOW ALL THEY NEED TO DO IS COMMIT MORE MURDERS TO ENACT MORE AND TOUGHER LEGISLATION BECAUSE YOU ARE GIVING IN TO TERRORISTS.

  21. I strongly support the right to own and bear arms. I do however, believe that unless a citizen plans to enter into a war with the government, there is no reason to have automatic weapons.
    I support the legislation which you propose.
    Madeline Grunbaum

  22. I don’t want or need any device that increases the rate of fire of any semi-automatic weapon. I absolutely don’t want or need an automatic weapon either. I do however take exception to any legislation that implies that the gun rather than the shooter is the problem. I protest any attempt to limit our Second Amendment rights. Constitutional Law should be written at the Federal level and should apply equally to all 50 States. Thank you.

  23. Thank you, Senator Brownsberger, for your work in advancing these bills. While I hope that the reconciliation process will find a good balance between the bills, it is great to hear that Massachusetts is taking action. The time to quibble is over.

  24. New, precise definitions are necessary.
    Contact the NRA for proper wording that will address bump stocks, but not infringe on other legal areas of firearm
    Folks at the NRA are experts on firearms. Use them as the valuable resource they are instead of demonizing an organization made up of law abiding citizens.

  25. This is a well wtitten piece of deceiving legislation once again being used to steal our 2nd Amendment Rights from us a Little at a time ! Especially in the wake of every tragedy, they spew the same old gun control rhetoric ( blanming the gun instead of the shooter ) . Even though they know that the bumper stocks had no bearing on what happened in Las Vegas . The people will remember come voting time.

  26. I DO NOT AGREE with any new legislation. I’ve never understood this “one person will wreck it all” stance that puts millions of peoples rights at risk. I do not understand why the action of one is portraid to be a threat by others. Its not the bump stocks or the weapons used its not the NRA and it’s not the people who choose to support or oppose. It’s the goverment swooping in a few weeks after something goes wrong, and they have there fingers ready to point before the shooting stops. I love Massachusetts as a state of great history and beutiful land. STOP TRYING TO TAKE OUR RIGHTS AWAY ONE ACCIDENT AT A TIME. Last i checked it happened in vegas where gun laws are laxed, not that it is a bad thing, but it did not happen here! We have registration, waiting periods for licensing applications, background checks, finger prints of applicants on file!!! Yet i can’t walk into a gun store amd buy a glock that was manufactured after 1994……too much of anything is a bad thing too many laws is tyranny. Throw the bump stocks to the wolves i could care less, but leaving the door open to people who can alter and or change tje definition of that bill and the 2nd ammendmant won’t last another 10 years in this state/country.

  27. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I share the concern about broad language. Many firearm owners have custom triggers, return springs, etc. to increase accuracy. Part of a custom trigger is adjusting the travel and reset. The reason is to minimize movement when the trigger is pulled allowing the shooter to stay on target.

    Being able to hit your target consistently is paramount to gun safety but with the original wording it could in theory be applied to a custom trigger – in the same way attorney general Haley has arbitrarily banned certain firearms without legislation.

  28. The House Bill is absolutely insane. It’s completely irrational. The House Bill is a perfect example why the NRA exists and why they have so much support across this country. The Senate language is clearer and more reasonable, but we should not be hastily legislating based on emotion resulting from a recent tragedy.

  29. Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

    I could care less about bumpstocks, but the Mass Legislature, the Mass SJC and the Mass AG have done so much to infringe on my 2nd Ammendment Rights, I can’t support anything you people do.

  30. Dear Senator Brownsberger,

    I do not favor a ban on bump stocks — but if “something must be done” I would prefer the Senate version. Punishing the innocent for the actions of the guilty is morally wrong in my opinion.

    You have to realize that these accessories were developed in response to the 1986 closing of the ATF NFA Machine Gun Registry. This resulted in fixing the supply of legally transferable machine guns and driving their cost to astronomical levels.

    You may want to consider either grandfathering the existing bump stocks, or leaving the door open in case the ATF decides to allow these accessories to be registered as an Any Other Weapon (AOW) on the ATF NFA registry. As an AOW, they would be highly controlled items.

    Alex Giger

    1. As some other commenters stated;

      You may want to consider allowing holders of MA Machine Gun Licenses to also possess and use bump stocks — after all many of these license holders already own machine guns.

      An argument can be made that MA LTC License holders should also be included.

  31. The House wording is far too vague and broad, leaving far too much open to “interpretation”. Bump stocks, cranks, and rate-increasing devices should be very clearly defined in any law intended to ban them. That being said, as a law-abiding gun owner and lifelong resident of the Commonwealth, I do not believe that I, and thousands of other law-abiding gun owners in the state should be punished for the acts of a single lunatic in Nevada.

    Thank you for your willingness to consider both sides of this debate.

  32. As a recently retired Navy combat veteran the use of any device to make a firearm operate full auto has no place in the general public’s hands. The mayhem these devices can cause far outweighs any limited positive specific uses.
    That said the devices should be spelled out in the verbiage and not left to an interpretable generality. In someone’s twisted mind that would include “gun oil” as it reduces bolt friction thereby increasing the rate of fire. Really?? We are all too familiar with the intent of ones idea, many years down the road, getting interpreted into something it wasn’t really meant to be.
    I believe the Senate version is the correct approach in spelling out the specific devices, which can be ammended, to eliminate any vagueness.
    For those that have acquired these devices prior to the legislative change, maybe an open declaration of the device, albeit time limited and with some intent of the device being non-transferable even when a firearm changes hands legally.
    I understand the intent of both parties to adopt some sort of legislation but this should be carefully thought through to protect the legal gun owner who currently possesses one of these devices from future persecution.
    Good luck with this important piece of legislation the results won’t please everyone but hopefully the terms are spelled out in specifics for the protection of all involved.

  33. And to add to it, 4 out of the last 5 mass shootings were done by registered democrats…… Nobody says anything about that though.

  34. The house version leaves open for interpretation improvements to firearms such as triggers intended for use in competition. The language is too vague and broad, possibly by intention. It’s typical of the “gun grabber” proposals that alienate lawful gun owners.

    The Senate version is specific to the devices in question, and does not open the door to future interpretations intended to remove rights from law abiding gun owners.

    A more appropriate response would be for the ATF to simply rule that such devices are deemed Class 3 regulated items.

  35. Sir, please wait and take action after the Federal Government. If you must take immediate action I suggest that you ignore the poorly worded House version that would certainly lead to unintended interpretations by individuals abusing their power – such as judges and attorneys general. And I would prefer that our elected officials spend their time addressing the root cause of problems rather than passing “feel-good” legislation that will have no affect on criminals.

  36. I am not sure of your goal here. I believe that murder is a crime, and murders don’t seem to care. People who use their guns properly and obey the law will obey this if you pass it, but I doubt that those intent on killing others
    will be too concerned with this ban.
    just sayin…………

  37. The Senate version is the most reasonable and specific. But it will only be one of thousands of gun bills in the country, few of which are enforced or even enforceable. Remember the Bartley-Fox law? When was the last time it was used?

    I also support the Senate version, the House version is too far-reaching and deliberately ambiguous.

  38. This is a infringement of 2nd amendment right as well as current firearm laws. I do not believe going after law abiding citizens will accomplish any but turning those citizens into criminals. The Massachusetts firearms laws are already vague and confusing.But I do thank you for this information because now i know who not to vote for. I honestly hope none of you get re-elected.

  39. Some have expressed concern that this broad language could sweep in relatively benign and modest adjustments to firearms.

    The concern is alarm to anyone familiar with firearms and history and should be alarming to any American.

  40. Police, from 1/1 to 8/30, had killed 734 civilians (Washington Post). Not all were bad. What regulation does this statistic need?
    Because 98% of the population don’t know, firing 550 rounds in 10 minutes doesn’t take any special device, a trained shooter could shoot double that number in 10 minutes.
    Because 99% of beacon hill has no idea what they’re trying to regulate, maybe they shouldn’t.

  41. “LET’S HAVE LEGISLATIVE INTEGRITY”….. We are smart enough to draft language that is precisely tailored to solve the problem we are targeting. The Senate bill does that perfectly. The House bill, as noted below, is intentionally vague — which is nothing more than collective punishment for the half-million Massachusetts gun owners who are NOT Stephen Paddock, and are absolutely mortified at what he did.

  42. Since it is inevitable that a ban on these implements is coming, the Senate version is much more specific and focused than the House version, which was intended to be deliberately vague. Hopefully if the Senate version is passed instead, it will eliminate the built-in confusion so glaringly apparent in Mr. Linskey’s bill.

  43. Drugs are illegal… crippling drug epidemic. Murder and rape are illegal. Jails are full of murderers, rapist, drug dealers, thieves. This bill along with any and all others are as effective as giving someone a wet blanket in the winter to keep warm. It really looks like you care, and you’re trying to help, but all you’re really doing is hurting the person (people) your trying to protect. Just because you make something more and more restricted and illegal, does not mean it will stop criminals from being criminals.

  44. If I were to be brutally honest it would go like this.

    Its obvious none of the Authors and supporters know anything about what your actually writing.

    Its obvious nobody bothered to consult anybody with any technical knowledge on the matter at all.


    You guys actually know what your doing and are trying to pass further regulation while hiding under the cover of ignorance.

    I personally could care less about the Slide Fire stocks but oppose any new legislation because as usual, give an inch you guys try to take 1k miles. I don’t know how else to say this but when it comes to writing laws you do not get an “A” for effort.

  45. I typically sway far left. You could say I am a typical millennial AKA Bernie supporter. Yet, I am an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment and I understand why people would support the ban on bump stocks. The problem is that this law’s language is too vague (from what I have read) and, perhaps most notable is the simple fact that murderers and criminals don’t follow laws. This action on behalf of our politicians doesn’t seem well thought out…

  46. This is just another attempt to make it impossible for law abiding citizens from protecting themselves when a tyrannical government in the future decides to go against their citizens in order to do with what they want to accomplish in enslaving their citizens to conform to a hostile government if it were to become a hostile government that mimics other governments. For instance governments that mimic North Korea, China, Cuba, Russia, or even putting citizens in concentration camp with like we had done with Japanese Americans during World War 2. Or even with what Hitler did to the Jewish people. We know this sets a precedent for the future of our government. This also is very unconstitutional as it is a blatant infringement on the second amendment of the Constitution. This makes it a crime against law abiding citizens. Do you really think a criminal is going to obey laws? They’re criminals!!! They are not going to obey this law, because they do not respect laws. Any Republican or other politician who goes along with any laws infringeing on our Constitution should be impeached. That is why we have a Constitution to hold officials accountable to protecting that and our country. But in order to protect our country we must protect our Constitution. So, in closing any politician not following the Constitution should be impeached or not re-elected.

  47. The Senate’s version makes better sense of the issue. The Houses version is too vague and can be open to one’s own interpretation like AG Healy’s so called assault weapons ban. For example, After 19yrs she’s the only AG who knows how to read the laws. Please don’t allow this type of bias to happen again to law abiding citizens/voters. Thank you for understanding and asking for input.

  48. How’s the ban going on pressure cookers? Oh yay Massachusetts. Maybe you geniuses can write a law stopping “bad people” from doing “bad things”. Then we’ll all be safe and sound. The Senate version may make more sense but this law will provide no additional protection from someone out to do harm. I’m so glad you all know what’s best for us. Independent voter that does not usually vote Democrat or won’t vote for a Republican supporting this.

  49. Yes, I saw the Tarr proposal. It is much better focused and eliminates a lot of the vague and dangerous content. I do have a couple concerns:

    1. Defining these attachments, which can do nothing on their own, as machine guns means possession is punishable by Life Imprisonment. That may have very serious consequences for many otherwise good, honest people. There are likely thousands of law abiding people in the State who possess these. Hundreds of thousands across the US.

    2. This also creates the precedent of banning lawfully owned private property with no provision for compensation … a dangerous if not illegal step towards confiscation and the kind of stuff Linsky wants to pass.

    3. You and other Legislators must be fully aware that this or any similar ban will do nothing to stop a bad person from doing bad things. If they intend to commit murder or other violent crimes then breaking another law will do nothing to stop them. They will make their own device or buy out of State.

    All this knee-jerk legislation will do is appease anti-gunners and the media with a false sense of having done “something.” When in reality it more dangerously will create felons out of good people because of ONE sick person out of millions of law abiding gun owners.

    Again, I come back to 0-2 rifle related homicides per year in MA for decades. How is this a priority given the much more prevalent preventable deaths that occur from opioids, gang violence, road rage, domestic abuse, etc?

    1. Now you are making far to much sense. We can’t have that in our law making. They are all about knee jerk feel good stuff so they can say we did “something “. Im waiting for people to wake up and say enough is enough already with these “lawmakers” taking our freedom away.

  50. Here’s the problem: you can make anything you want illegal and that WONT stop CRIMINALS from breaking the law, murder, drugs, rape, etc won’t matter. All you and the government are doing is removing law-abiding citizen’s rights. Americans stand for Freedom. Stop taking our freedom away.

    Law-abiding citizens don’t need regulating, we need more police to protect us from criminals. Criminals don’t care if it’s illegal to possess an automatic weapon, they also don’t care if you ban guns. They will always possess weapons. Weapons come in lots of forms: knives, guns, plastic wrap, cars, big rig trucks, and airplanes.

    No government is going to ban air travel because of 9/11, no government is going to ban trucks/vans because of Nice. No government should ban guns because of a criminal attack.

    1. Agree 100%, how about enforcing current gun laws with the actual jail sentence instead of dismissing the charges…..as.seen all to often!

    2. You are absolutely correct. This ridiculous knee jerk legislation won’t do a darn thing to make anyone “safer”. It does however once again chip away from law abiding citizens liberty. Congrats to you liberty haters.

  51. You are very foolish if you think your stance will change the danger. I hope Will Brownsberger will be voted out soon for his ignorance. Myself I do not condone bump stocks. There is definitely a bigger agenda.

  52. You’re not living up to the oath you took to uphold the Constitution. And the 2nd Amendment is part of that oath. No one knows what happened in Las Vegas and the investigation is still ongoing. You just began to open Pandora’s Box. What’s next confiscation of law bidding citizens guns? And if you intend to pass these Bills why is it that law enforcement are being issued suppressors and not law bidding citizens? Isn’t that a little hypocritical? No one is happy about what happened in Las Vegas but you’re punishing all law bidding citizens in the United States because of a few. It’s like racial profiling except you’re doing it to law bidding gun owners. You can’t take an oath to the Constitution and then pick and choose what Amendments you want to follow. Remember the people who voted you in can vote you out just as easily and find someone who will honor their oath. Because once you start tearing apart the Constitution and it’s Amendments that’s when people need to ask themselves are we a democracy or a dictatorship? And is this the tyrannical government our Four Fathers were talking about? I Love America but our government has gone to crap with too many people putting money into people’s pockets for a vote their way. I know you all consider it a contribution but the American people know better. Stop what you know is wrong and stand up and say enough is enough. Honor your oath!!!!

    1. P.S. Your also just made law bidding citizens targets for all criminals because they unlike responsible gun owners don’t follow your laws. Because they don’t care that’s why they’re criminals!!!!!

  53. Senator;
    First, thank you for soliciting the comments on these proposed pieces of legislation.
    I cannot support the House bill. It was written by one of the most vociferously anti-gun representatives in the country. It was specifically written in such a vague manner as to allow our equally anti-gun Attorney General to interpret it in any way she saw fit. This is extremely dangerous.
    The Senate bill, while better, is far from perfect. What do we do with all the legal owners of slide fire stocks or trigger cranks. When they bought them, they were legal. This is a textbook version of an ex post facto bill.
    There needs to be some mechanism for dealing with this situation. While I don’t own either device and have no interest in them, I also do not begrudge someone else their right to own a legally allowable device. I was frankly surprised that the ATF, under the Obama administration approved these devices. My thought is that they allowed them hoping for a tragedy such as Las Vegas, which could be used to severely restrict firearms ownership while emotions run high, as now. After all- never let a good tragedy go to waste.

  54. To respond to your question, Will, I wish I knew more about how these things worked, While a lifetime shooter, I never heard of them. But I can see the House version is risky. The Senate version is more specific and better by far. As for words, I think you should add “and other devices with a similar effect”. Creative people will create other devices beyond bump stocks and trigger cranks. And how about outlawing large-capacity magazines. Without these, automatic weapons have much less affect.

    1. I find it amazing you are sp eager to ban something you never sven heard of. You do realize you are about to once again lose a bit more liberty. Pick pick pick and soon it will all be gone. Sad times for this once great nation

    2. That’s naive. Anyone with any kind of training can be just as deadly with a 10 round magazine as a 30 round magazine. Taping 2 magazines together only prevents a few seconds of non fire. Not enough to make any kind of difference.

      If you add “similar devices” then you open it up to misinterpretation like AG Healy. And you get someone who knows nothing except a semi-automatic rifle looks like an automatic rifle making rash and ignorant decisions only making the public angry and drive up the preban used market prices. She didn’t prevent any more AR sales, she made them more expensive and non taxable. Good job AG.

    3. Im blown away at the level of ignorance and how uninformed a self proclaimed ‘lifetime shooter’ could be.

      When will the days come where we have the leadership that will make decisions that will help fix the real issues and not pander and ultimately cave to the masses on topics of which they have no working knowledge of?

    4. Large capacity magazines are banned in many states and do nothing other than punish law abiding citizens. Do you really think someone who plans on using a large capacity magazine to commit a crime is going to think twice about because they are banned by law??? We have more than enough gun laws on the books already. Maybe if they enforced the gun laws we already have there would be less reason to come up with new ones……

  55. As a NRA Range Safety Officer, Benefactor Life NRA member, and Chairman of our local Republican Town Committee, I wholeheartedly support a ban on “bump Stocks” and Trigger “crank devices”, but those ONLY.
    Bruce Tarr is correct on this issue.

    Of course, this is like locking the barn after all the horses have been stolen.

    1. Problem is you let them ban these and next thing you know you put too much lube on your rails instead of having a licensed official do it and it increased your rate of fire. Big legal trouble. $$$
      Give them and inch and they will ban semi auto ar-15 in MA altogether…. Wait…. What?!?!??

  56. Poorly written legislation. Suggest legislature obtain expert assistance, someone who is familiar specific firearms / accessory terms that will have a specific legal meaning. Write something that will actually do what it is intended rather than be interpreted by the courts and the AG for some future political agenda. We have already seen how that works out…. Why the additional language? GUESS WHY! Just another intended loosely written law subject to future interpretation…

    This legislation will not have any impact other than to again erode (just a little at a time) a Constitutionally provided RIGHT away from the law abiding Citizen! Criminals do not follow Laws. That’s why they are called CRIMINALS…

  57. The Senate version may avoid getting the Commonwealth into expensive lawsuits; the House version will be found illegal and cost use large sums of tax dollars to defend.

  58. As a Armed Professional & a voting constituent of the Commonwealth I’m very disappointed with the haste of this Bill. We are all sickened by the actions of that monster in LV. This is a “knee-jerk” Bill, especially the original House Bill. How something with that vague & overreaching language could even be voted in is beyond me! While the Senate Bill has specific language, the question remains why the haste? These continued measures only effect the law abiding, since criminals disregard all laws, including murder! I urge you to do right by the constituency.. I will be voting accordingly.

  59. These are still vague. Why add jargon and verbiage that does nothing more then cause other issues.

    The FBI and ATF are still stating they do not know if the bump fire stock was used just that there were on some of the firearms found at the scene in the room. We continue to add and draft laws that do nothing to fix any issues on the topic, rather just make it look to the uneducated masses on firearms that the state is trying to do something when they do nothing.

    First, what is a trigger crank? You have people drafting laws that are so unfamiliar with the industry. The laws are still too vague. There are hundreds of normal changes a person might do to a firearm that could increase the rate of fire. Oil it, police the feed ramp, change the barrel, replace stock mass produced parts that wear easy with stronger more durable aftermarket parts. What if they don’t replace a stock part for performance rather the firearm breaks and the after market parts are superior in quality?

    It really is crushing to see opportunities to actually draft laws, make changes and add verbiage that would make real verifiable change and instead the people in the position to do so draft laws such as the ones we see before us. It is disheartening to say the least. Instead of reaching out, doing some homework or even just calling a town hall and reviewing the best options we jump without looking and it does nothing but hurt the law abiding citizens and nothing to make them safer.

    Also what about pre-existing stocks and firearms that already exist? Where is that bill/law and verbiage? Is the state going to compensate the owners for the cost of those items to remove/replace them? Are they grandfathered in? We have politicians that have no concern as to what the people want or what will actually bring about change that we really want and need. It is truly sad to see the direction the Commonwealth is headed as well as this nation.

  60. Sir,

    I respectfully disagree with any further infringement. We the people who obey the law only use firearms for lawful purposes.

    Will additional laws stop criminals who don’t observe law in the first place? Device bans punish the innocent with more restrictions and fewer rights while the public gains a false sense of security.

    A device which converts to class III should be regulated at the Federal Level. I agree with consulting the National Rifle Association on action and language. Broad language may unintentionally include parts which do not automate fire but would restrict some; people of a smaller stature, women and people with disabilities from participating in sport and self defense.

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

  61. The proposed legislation is typical of the knee-jerk, ineffective, ignorant response characteristically submitted by liberal progressive legislators before actual facts are established. No criminal will obey this law and these cynical legislators know this but are using the Las Vegas tragedy to promote their attack on our civil rights. This proposed legislation is targeting law-abiding firearm owners, only. Since you asked, below are my comments.
    1) Define: “rate of fire.” This phrase remains vague in the write-up.
    2) Suggest revising the language of the bill completely. For example, consider this: “Mechanical or electro-mechanical devices, not included as part of the original firearm manufacturer’s design, that facilitate trigger activation, other than a deliberate single pull to fire a single round using one’s finger (or artificial appendage) to activate the trigger are unlawful.”

  62. I personally could care less about bump stocks. But what I do care about is the broad range of other items such as match grade triggers or Tacon’s. There are several other common items found on ar style rifles that could also fall into this category. The MAJOR PROBLEM with this and every other gun law/ ban is that they do absolutely nothing to control illegal activities. The only people who are affected by these laws are the good law abiding citizens who are the only ones that follow these laws in the first place. Criminals will always have a way to obtain firearms/accessories that are banned by law and making new laws will have absolutely zero effect on that. The same goes for all supposed “common sense” laws. They are all being put in place for one reason, which is ultimately to completely disband the 2nd Amendment for law abiding citizens.

  63. This is an unbelievably horrible law that turns law-abiding citizens into felons overnight, without any prior discussion or public comment on proposed legislation. A piece of plastic will now be treated as a machine gun, and heavily regulated with felony charges.

    There are many thousands of lawful owners of bump fire stocks, and there is no way that all of them will be informed about this change. It is very likely that many of them will be caught “years later” with these devices and their lives will be ruined as they are prosecuted harshly and thrown in prison over a piece of plastic, which was 100% legal to own when they purchased it. For the owners that are notified, they will be forced to dispose of their legally purchased and owned possessions with zero compensation from the government, which is and has been ruled by the supreme court as being unconstitutional.

    If there was ever a law that needed close judicial review before being passed, it’s this one.

  64. Being a former combat engineer, I have used lots of machine guns and select fire assault rifles. As a responsible gun owner, I would never buy a bump stock, trigger crank, or similar device.
    It is a simulated select fire and a faux novelty.
    On the note of using this legislation to stop horrific mass shootings, I don’t think banning a cheap piece of plastic will stop criminals and terrorists from committing mass shootings or make anyone safer.
    I personally believe he could have killed more people if he used a magazine fed semi-automatic hunting rifle (larger caliber like 30 06). We are very lucky that he was a dumb-ass and planned this super Hollywood style mass shooting.
    I believe we need to evaluate how we approach mental health. There are lots of countries where lots of people have access to semi-automatic rifles (and sometimes pistols) where mass shootings don’t happen at a high frequency.
    I don’t believe that law abiding gun owners should be punished for the acts of terrorists. That being said, I have a strong feeling that there will be more mass shootings and pushes to restrict rights in exchange for an illusion of improved public safety. I see the constitution as a linchpin for protecting our constitutionally recognized rights. We have neo-Nazis and anti-fascists(communists) clashing in the streets. We have terrorists murdering for what I’m guess is fame. This is the time to be pro-freedom. Thank you

  65. I think that the amendment clarifies the requirements and appears to be to be properly limited. I question however, how the state has the authority to make illegal the possession of something by a person who already has one that was purchased legally at the time. Should the state have the responsibility to provide compensation and require the current legal owners turn their devices in to receive that compensation?

  66. As a former Veteran of the U.S. ARMY, Who was trained and certified to use the M60 and M249 both full auto assault weapons. I fully agree that there is no need for a civilian to have full auto. These and other weapons alike are most effective as use for suppressive fire, So your squad can move during battle. So I agree that the bump stock tool and trigger cranks, as well as any other device that will covet a weapon into FULL AUTO should not be allowed into a civilians hand. BUT AS FOR OTHER DEVICES THAT SHOULD STOP THERE. (As well as semi auto rifles of all kinds should not be banned ever.) Muzzle brakes and compensates and other such device should continue to be allowed. They provide a necessary assistance to weapons and the shooter to increase accuracy and follow up shots on hunting and defense.
    Thank you for your time and please make sure the right thing is done here. And as always up hold up the 2nd amendment. When all else fails it is the only thing protecting us all from true evil that is out there.

  67. This is an appropriate response to the potential threat of semi-automatic firearms being turned into automatic firearms in Massachusetts.

    How will current owners of these currently legal items be compensated for the loss of their property?
    Will currently possessed items be “grandfathered” in the law?
    How can their legally owned possessions be legally disposed of?
    What is the period of time for when this goes into effect?
    What happens when a executor of a will discovers that the deceases was in possession of an now illegal device?

  68. Given what I’ve read, I favor the House version. Furthermore, the semi-automatics and assault weapons that bump sticks can be used with should be banned.

    Instead of merely specifying prison time, restitution should also be required.


    James Hencke

    1. What you’re truly looking for is a ban on all semi-automatic long guns. Your knee jerk statement shows your true ignorance regarding firearms. People like you are dangerous to the 2A freedoms given to us by the Founding Fathers. I will continue to use my firearms for hunting and target shooting regardless of what ANYBODY says, period.

  69. MA already made the long guns these devices are designed to attach to illegal. If I buy a smoother bolt for my hunting rifle would that be considered a device that increases its rate of fire?
    This is kneejerk legislation. With a little practice, competition style rifles and ammo this guy could have killed way more people.
    How about passing a law that makes security levels higher in schools and large gatherings? We protect our money in banks better than we do our kids in schools. Please vote no. This is incrementalism masked by emotion.

  70. I AM A GUN OWNER I BELEIVE IN BANNING SO CALLED bump stocks. The average gun owner has no need of these devices. I do have a problem with the penalty part. Seems criminals don’t get such severe penalty. Remember guns don’t kill people. People kill people. There are thousands of gun laws on the books , enforce them.

  71. I agree with Senator Tarr. The devices should be regulated as are machine guns.
    Penalties proposed are to severe for a generally law abiding citizen who inadvertently violates the statute by mere possession or non violent use.

    Retired Police Lieut/Training Officer/Firearms Instructor (MPTC & NRA)

  72. I still have mixed feelings on bump fire stocks but, at least it’s o my a bump stock that is getting blamed instead of all guns I count that as a victory with some thought put in. I do not like the language being used almost as a scare tactic. Machine gun makes this seem much worse than it is. We need to be as clear as possible without others in the gun community being smartasses and saying how bump stock are technically semi auto.

  73. There is no correlation with stricter gun laws and public safety. But don’t take my word for it. You should travel to the south side of Chicago where some of the strictest gun laws in the nation exist and experience it there for yourself. Keep in mind that the authorities there that passed these laws travel with armed security guards.

  74. The House version is very BROAD and a kneejerk reaction. The Senate version appears to land close to target……targeting bump stocks under machine gun regulations. Penalty section for “possession /ownership”is longer than rapists, manslaughter and bank robbers….does that make sense??.

    I would note FYI that ATF has struggled with this issue for years without resolution.

  75. The house version is vague and too inclusive. A gun owner would be in fear of making ANY addition to a gun, as a DA could claim that it increases the ability to fire quickly.

    I support the Senate version, your version. The law should be specific to avoid confusion and regulatory creep.

  76. Just saying crazy people and criminals do not care about the existing laws or any other future laws that may come up. So don’t think that this action will stop gun violence, guns don’t kill people it’s the people behind the guns that kill people. There will alway be guns available even if you outlaw them completely. I do not have the answer to stop crime but laws won’t.

  77. I VEHEMENTLY oppose this bill because if our government is going to take away our right as lawful citizens to posess ANYTHING it must first produce 2 things to PROVE to us as citizens why we should relinquish our right and subjugate ourselves to potential tyranny.

    1. Who the shooterS actually were at the Las Vegas massacre as not one SHRED of real evidence has been released and tested to be 100% TRUE that S.P. was the ACTUAL shooter from the 32nd floor of M.B. Video and camera evidence of how he brought such firearms into a secure hotel and casino AND video evidence of him allegedly shooting at the crowd. Without that the US government has NO ground to stand on to take any right away from us as the evidence shown and the lack of actual physical evidence seems to prove a completely different story.

    Take a poll of Americans NO ONE BELIEVES THIS B.S. STORY!!!

    2. What good banning such a thing will actually do in the future as THOUSANDS of people already possess this “range toy”. There is NO WAY to 100% guarantee this item being legislatively removed from the US. And you definately can’t come and get them… that’s a bad plan (and I don’t even have one). “Banning” bumpstocks accomplishes NOTHING. Invest in mental health not in revoking our rights.

    Proof comes before any conversation about legislation!!!

    If you legislate our rights away without representation from ALL Massachusetts citizens then I will bring every gun owner I know to the state house and we will never ever stop perusing our rights until we have clear answers and law revocation.

  78. Thank you for this information. I was very concerned that the House language was too vague and potentially broad. The Senate version is much more clear and direct to accomplish the ban of bump stocks. I hope the Senate version will prevail, even though it is my opinion that the efforts to ban anything should be done in a deliberate and reasonable way, without RUSHING the process just to claim the mantle of being the first state to ban bump stocks.

  79. Why are we not banning sugar? Obesity kills more people than guns. What about trucks, more people killed and injured in Paris than Vegas. What is really needed is not more gun control but more control of mental health. Why don’t you people deal with the real problem? Jim Traniello – Independent

  80. You find it so easy to stomp all over the bill of rights. A bump stock doesn’t modify the action of a semi automatic and therefore doesn’t increase the rate of fire. You know that these laws are only for the law abiding gun owners because NO LAW WOULD HAVE STOPPED A CRAZY GUY. You’re only moving closer and closer to repealing the second amendment. We know who you are and we know what you’re doing. You’re creating the slippery slope to a gun ban and confiscation.

  81. A ban on bump stocks is ludicrous. The same effect can be achieved using a dowel cut to an appropriate length, a string, your pants belt loop, or simply holding the firearm loosely. The problem here is, as usual, the person, not the tool. Stop infringing on my rights because of one madman. Madmen will always exist, and if they want to commit harm, they will, through ANY means they can.

  82. I am not for the passage of laws that do nothing to stop crime. Either of these bills have 2 goals: line the pockets of everyone in congress “we passed something, hooray career”, take the money from law abiding gun owners to do said pocket lining.

    The notion that banning things solves the problem has been proven folly. We all have very long knives in our kitchen, very fast cars in our driveway. Those have been proven effective in mass killings too. Are we writing laws to: only sharpen our knives at 80 degree angles, or ban rear spoilers because they make cars look scary and aggressive? No.

    The mass-stabbing that took place in the Taunton Galleria Mall 2 years ago is an example of what happens when someone is not given the proper mental health required to go about their daily business. The person was sent to a mental health clinic and was immediately discharged. The next day, he went on a killing spree. 100% avoidable incident.

    Fellow voters, the best thing to do is become educated on these topics for politicians prey on the uneducated by attempting to pass bills such as the proposal by the author.

  83. Hi,
    I don’t have a problem with a law banning bump stock and trigger cranks. In my opinion there is no good reason for this type of modification to ANY gun. I do not agree with any language that does not specifically state the type of modification and wants to do a blanket type of ban. This would hurt sport and competition shooters who want to make the trigger pull easier to use, hand grip or sighting better, or any other reasonable modification.
    The penalty is quite severe though, it does seems like a knee jerk reaction because of the tragedy in Vegas.

  84. Ban should state only devices that are designed specifically to mimic full auto fire shall be banned

  85. TThis is just proving that you are heading down a path to ban and confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. You are trying to turn all law abiding citizens into criminals or guilt them into give up rights to bear arms. The Las Vegas shooting just proved your continued efforts to restrict gun ownership failed. This man was mentally unstable and had bad intentions that ended up killing people. He went through all the background checks and passed. Yor whole premise of banns and regulation failed you then and will continue to fail. Mentally unstable and bad intentioned people will always find a way to harm others.

  86. The House bill is inredibly broad. Does that inlcude lighter triggers? If so to what weight is it considered “increasing the rate of fire”? While I don’t think a ban on bumpstocks will accomplish anything (considering you could 3-D print them, and theres no way to round up the ones already out there), if you’re going to do it, just do the bumps specifically.

    One thing that is in both that needs to be changed is banning current possesion. If people already own them, and they aquired them legally, it isn’t fair to retroactively criminalize them.

    And on a seperate note, I thought they were already banned in MA under the AWB becasue they are technically “Adjustable stocks”? That’s what I was told when I looked into buying one about a year and a half ago.

  87. You should pass legislation that require criminals to obey the law! Get where I’m going here?

    ‘Shall not be infringed’ means exactly that.

  88. I would be fine with limiting anything that would be applied to mimic fully automatic firing rates. Anything further could be misinterpreted on modifications that wouldn’t be used to actually increase the rate of fire but might be construen that way.

  89. Ir would be helpful to know what specifically the House version would ban that the Senate version would not. I like the House version because it prohibits that which we fear– namely the modification of devices to increase the rate of discharge. The Senate version might be circumvented by calling the modification something else other than a bump stock.

    I applaud the courage of the state legislators who are promoting public safety by this legislation.

  90. I wholeheartedly disagree with this and all manner of knee-jerk, feel good/fix nothing infringements on the people’s rights here in Massachusetts.

  91. Criminals DO NOT CARE ABOUT LAWS. all this is for law abiding citizens like my self. Just another attack on my freedom because some crazy man. When will politicians wake up. It’s never been a gun problem. It’s a people problem.

  92. Ben Franklin put it best: “those who would give up liberty, to purchase temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. It’s crazy to me that people actually think laws that take away my rights as a citizen will prevent crime. Does anyone realize that criminals don’t obey laws? This continued nipping away at the constitution has got to end.

  93. Senate language is more acceptable. As a gun owner I don’t feel restricting bump stocks and trigger cranks is going to infringe on my rights. But, the rush to make these restrictions is typical of the knee jerk reaction we usually see from our legislature.
    This event in Las Vegas was likely a one off. So, in the end you won’t accomplish anything other than making you all look like usual. There are other issues you could address concerning my Modern Sporting Rifle that our AG has “banned” because she decided to.

  94. I do not own a bump fire stock but any legislation against such a device is a direct attack on my constitutional rights.

    Any person who thinks creating a law such as this is going to stop evil people from committing crimes is a complete fool.

    Mr. Brownsberger you are a fool.

  95. I have an idea, the only way to legally have one is to posess a machinegun license along with any silencers.

  96. That will not work! The jails will get filled with innocent retailers. You will also have to ban pool floats, beach balls and footballs. I have seen them misused this way. You should require a device on automatic fire arms that require an intervening hand action to reset something to enable firing the next round

  97. To me it makes total sense to go with
    the senate plan. Not tied to a budget
    plan. We already have a law banning
    machine guns!!!! Just add it to the
    existing plan.

  98. 3D printer on amazon is 99$ the file’s are free. You understand your trying to ban a peace of plastic? You can build a bump stock from wood plastic metal. You didn’t even know what a bump stock was 7 day’s ago, now your trying to ban them. Massachusetts is going down a sippery slope. Is a lighter trigger going to be a automatic firearm now?. I’m moving to Maine I’m going to pay less taxes, own a AR 15 , buy a STANDARD capacity magazine(30), and I’m going to love it. Bye “the people’s Republic of Massachusetts” im moving to America.

  99. Excerpt from The Washington Post

    “The Fix Analysis
    All about bump stocks, the deadly gun accessory used in Vegas that Congress might ban
    By Amber Phillips October 4”

    “Why do some gun owners like it? Well, Slide Fire’s website doesn’t mention much in the way of, say, testimony from paralyzed veterans who were able to get back into their job thanks to this attachment. The website does, however, have a remarkable marketing pitch that basically boils down to: To own one of these is to be a patriot.”

    As for my opinion: We need to spend more money promoting mental health. Take the stigma out of it…again, this gunman, a retired accountant from Las Vegas did not have a criminal record. All who knew him were shocked that he would do such an act. The girlfriend never saw the arsenal of guns and ammunition? She must be a terrible house cleaner.
    Personally, who needs a bump stock? Not any hunter I know.

  100. Thanks to the ambiguities in the new law, many will now seek out their Green Card in Massachusetts. As anyone who owns more than one firearm and a Curio and Relics license can be considered a bonafied collector, I cannot wait to see the flood of requests and law suits that will commence now that the law has passed.

    I am sure all of the representatives who voted on the passage of this legislation will have no issue with law abiding citizens possessing their Machine Gun license in Massachusetts to protect themselves from frivolous litigation.

  101. Will people in lawful possession of bump stocks and trigger cranks prior to any ban be grandfathered? Also, it appears the ammendent is specific to bump stocks and trigger cranks. If so, please do not add any broad modification lanquage. Thank you.

  102. When will you “representatives” of the people stop writing laws that only affect the law abiding? How can you think it’s a good idea to ram this one down our throats before the facts of the Vegas catastrophe are known? The correct timeline (for God’s sake) hasn’t even been established and you shrieking nitwits are falling all over yourselves to clamp down on the law abiding.

    Aren’t there more pressing issues facing families, veterans, children, Healthcare, etc. in MA?

    Stop writing new laws.

    Criminals don’t follow them.

    1. Additionally, I would like to propose that any new legislation be put on the ballot for the voters to approve.

  103. Senate language is more acceptable. As a gun owner I don’t feel restricting bump stocks and trigger cranks is going to infringe on my rights.

  104. I believe the senate version is more specific to the actual devices, which is where we would like to see this bill go. The majority of competitive shooters see no need for bump stocks or crank triggers, and would like to see the more detailed and specific version of this bill passed. Gaining our support is crucial to future cooperation, as we feel this should not be about non-gun owners verse responsible gun-owners. We can find common ground on sensible, well written legislation. There are many modifications that we as competitive shooters and sportsmen and women make to our firearms in order to improve performance which have absolutely nothing to do with “rate of fire” which on it’s own is a meaningless term, as you may or may not realize, a semi-automatic firearm has “no rate of fire” as it will only fire as fast as the human finger can activate the trigger: The term “rate of fire” is mis-leading. There should be language which somehow states “single pull of trigger” but I do understand the “spirit” of the emotional reference to “rate of fire”. Thank you.

  105. Senator Brownsberger, first I would like to thank you and you’re staff for reaching out to me and ask for comments on the proposed legislation. As firearms owner for over 46-years & a NRA certified instructor, I can not think of ANY situation that would call for the use of a bump stocks or trigger cranks. BUT, in competition target shooting, most marksmen modify the tension on the trigger to a lesser resistance allowing the trigger to move without jurking the gun. Theoretically this modification could be considered as allowing the gun to shoot faster….which is not the intent of a “softer trigger pull”

  106. The rush to ban these “bump stocks” has produced a grey, ill worded bill that will continue to victimize law abiding citizens and do nothing to stop criminals. You cannot outlaw these from people who currently own them! If you are going to ban them from this day forward than simply do it and eliminate the obscure wording referencing other modifications that will certainly cause problems in the future. It has become the standard “give an inch and you take a mile” senior. Nothing I have seen proposed will keep a criminal from using a “bump stock”.

  107. I like the senate version. It more handily specifies these accessories as creating “machine guns” all automated enhancement to existing guns -which increase their firing capacity, should be accurately described, and if qualified, restricted.

  108. Senator Brownsberger,

    Respectfully, I would like to state that this effort is a waste of the Senate’s time and the taxpayers money to spend so much time on this issue. This legislation is aimed at making an unserialized piece of plastic (or metal, or wood, or anything really) illegal. This does nothing to prevent the exact same tragedy from happening, not even by a long shot. It also does nothing to stop getting this piece of equipment in the hands of a criminal.

    I personally feel it is still too early to use the following reference to make a point, but murdering innocent lives who are enjoying life at a concert is illegal, but that did not stop the criminal in Las Vegas. It is critically important for our representatives in Massachusetts to understand that any new infringement or legislation on firearms is ONLY affecting law abiding gun owners, folks who already practice safe and responsible firearm ownership.

    An interview from a popular magazine always comes to mind when I hear about more firearm legislation in MA: “Criminals prefer unarmed victims.”

    Dylan Ciolfi

  109. I don’t own one but seems to be another hit to my rights. it will not change a thing except to law abiding people. it makes no sense to allow the represenative of a free people to disarm their masters. mass always fisrt to step on these rights. if guns kill people then spoons make people fat and cars kill people.

  110. I agree that Bump Stocks should be treated like machine guns. I fully support the senate language to achieve this. The House version of this restriction is overly broad and extremely ambiguous and easily abusable by a prosecuting attorney. Many modifications made to firearms have nothing to do the speed with which a firearm can be repeat fired but could run afoul of the House language.

  111. I’m disapointed that these actions are being brought against law abiding citizens. If leadership is seaking to criminalize those who legally purchased or posses a certain stock or any legal modification we have a much bigger issue on our hands. Agreed with my constituents, this is not about an object. It is about the person. Reclassification and grandfathering would best as prescribed by the senate.

  112. The ban will have absolutely no effect on a suicidal madman. Even the Washington Post reluctantly validated Marco Rubio’s claim that no recent mass shooting would have been prevented by gun laws. They offer no deterrent to a madman. That said, what do all the MA bump stock owners do with their banned device? This is why the MA ban on assault rifles and high capacity magazines is being chsllenged.

  113. Sir,

    I would like to second Allison’s well stated stance and respectfully disagree with any further infringement. As she said, we the people who obey the law only use firearms for lawful purposes, and such bans punish the innocent with more restrictions and fewer rights while the public gains a false sense of security.

    As stated: “A device which converts to class III should be regulated at the Federal Level. I agree with consulting the National Rifle Association on action and language. Broad language may unintentionally include parts which do not automate fire but would restrict some; people of a smaller stature, women and people with disabilities from participating in sport and self defense.”

    I agree with the above; such hasty legislation will only serve to limit (and legally threaten) the good people of this state, and will in no way prevent nor mitigate instances of violence as seen in Nevada. “Devices” other than bump stocks that achieve the same effect (i.e. belt loops, string, rubber bands) are widely available, thus outlawing such a device to such an extreme extent is futile.

    While I disagree with ANY infringement and the imposition of ANY ban, I understand the great likelihood of such legislation passing, and strongly urge you and all others in the committee to remove any vagueness from the bill before it is presented to the governor.

    Thank you for your consideration.

  114. Thank you for your support of this effort, Will. I can not believe all of the NRA syncopates commenting that you are infringing on their rights (to kill people?). Keep on doing the correct thing.

  115. Thank you for reaching out to me. The House version is too broad. I agree with the very specific Senate version.

  116. The proposed legislation is far too vague and provides another invitation for AG Healey to further exceed her authority as she has already done with impunity on Sporting Rifles.This is another hastily written document rushed through in the name of “doing something” without any consideration of the unintended consequences affecting law abiding gun owners. Please resist the urge to “do something” and allow the ATF to formulate an appropriate response to the modification of firearms. Instead, please encourage your colleagues to focus their energy on reeling in our grandstanding Atty. General.

  117. Thank you for the opportunity to accept comments on this legislation. The addition of specific definitions addresses one of the main issues. However, I still have a few concerns.

    Firstly, So how does one who may already have purchased a “bump stock” legally get compensated for their property? By making possession illegal, you’ve effectively devalued this property and made it impossible to sell within the Commonwealth. This appears to violate the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution.

    Secondly, how does this law prevent any future crimes using this apparatus? Much like illegal narcotics, they will likely be available for purchase illegally by those who have no regard for law. As we’ve seen with illegal drugs, those intent on obtaining items illegally will continue to do so, regardless of laws passed.

    Thirdly, Section ZZ of the House version gives a single person the authority to interpret, enforce, prosecute, and apply the law. There seems to be no justification to this other than to expand governmental power. As we’ve seen with the current Attorney General, this allows a single person with a personal agenda to circumvent the Legislature and make law from his/her office.

    Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment, even though I am outside your district. It’s this desire to solicit information from those who may have a different perspective or may be more knowledgeable on a specific subject to educate and inform about practical ramifications of laws that may not have been considered.

  118. I agree with banning the specific device(s). language regarding rate of speed can be correlated to a gun smith changing the weight of a trigger pull which is done often for competition shooters. A lighter pull can arguably mean “faster rate of fire”. The ban should be specific to the components and the “automatic” rate of fire meaning the trigger is HELD and the fire is continuous. – Valcourt, Daniel G. (Former Army Sergeant First Class)

  119. If Massachusetts absolutely must rush more “feel good” legislation through before allowing the BATFE to review the issue, my preference is for the more specific Senate version.

  120. I believe the senate bill makes the most sense. I have a simple statement for all who object.


    1. Nancy
      lets ban cars that can speed, lets ban alcohol(again), lets fill in every swimming pool, lets ban acetaminophen, motorcycles, bicycles, scissors, knives etc etc

      If you object, I want you to remember

      mine is an equally stupid statement, but remember that every item I mentioned above has caused more deaths this year than a “bump stock”

      1. It’s so disheartening to see these pathetic, overused, and debunked arguments from gun owners on this thread. I wish I could say they’re all “bots” but they’re real people. Sadly, when people are killed, these craven sociopaths would rather hold on to their precious guns then stop for one second and think – “maybe I would be a real man if I gave up my gun in the name of those who died, maybe I could be part of the solution” – that might be the American thing to do. But in this America there are different types of Americans, and these guys are the Americans who only believe in themselves – as long as they’re locked and loaded they don’t have to solve arguments peacefully, they don’t have to ever feel scared (God forbid), they always right, and they always know that they’re the meanest hombre in the room just because they’re packing. And if they didn’t have their pathetic little toys, then what would they be? Oh no! That question is way to profound for them to comprehend. Not men, just scared, little, inadequate boys hiding behind their toys. Just speaking the plain truth here, friends. Real men see carnage and they use common sense, not crap machismo, to solve problems. You all should be ashamed of yourselves after Sandy Hook. You think your life is more important than an innocent child? SHAMEFUL. Putting yourselves before the lives of innocents so that you can have your precious guns like Gollum with his ring; watching carnage day after day and doing nothing; taking the 2nd amendment and twisting it into your own sick logic;
        spewing stupidity over and over when it’s been factually debunked; making sure your America is the only America.
        Taking away from the rest of us our right to life, liberty and happiness.
        You’re all very sick people.
        (I won’t be replying to any tolls on here, so don’t waste your breath)

        1. Kate, we are neighbors in Belmont and we’ve had discussions, face to face more than once. I’m wondering if you felt even a little threatened by the the gun on my hip? I know I was carrying a firearm when we spoke because I have everyday, for almost 20 years. You see a loved one of mine was killed in a neighboring city. She was alone, robber and killed over less than $30 she had in her pocketbook. She had no way to defend herself against a stronger, younger man. Had she had a way to defend herself, maybe she’d be alive today. My wife, whom you’ve also had a conversation, and I have carried since.

          We certainly aren’t the “meanest hombres in the room, our goal everyday is to get home to our children. We try to mitigate our risk against that “hombre” who doesn’t care about the law and doesn’t care about human life.

    2. Nancy, banning alcohol or reducing the maximum speed to 25 mph would save more than one life.

      Are you agreeable to this?

    1. While there is mutual agreement on “bump stocks and trigger cranks” ,giving broad authority to define devices is no less than the democratic party moving towards disarmament. Let’s agree that gun control only controls law abiding citizens. Madmen will sadly carry out horific crimes against humanity…with or without guns

  121. I can see both sides of the story here – personally, I don’t think banning bump stocks does anything more than allow politicians to say “We took ACTION! See?” but then again, I don’t see that it’s a bad idea either.

    The problem is that we’re concentrating on the symptom and missing the disease. When are we going to stop worrying about HOW people kill each other and start worrying about WHY? When will we put some importance on ensuring basic health AND mental health care for everyone? When will we fix our economy so that people aren’t constantly worried about losing their jobs? When are we going to focus our educational system on useful skills and life management instead of test preparation and getting into a “name” college so that a useless degree can be obtained?

    There’s the real problem. Let’s spend some time discussing that instead.

  122. I believe the Senate’s language to be much better defined and a more common sense approach than the knee jerk reaction House version. That being said I am still not convinced that more gun law bans or restrictions will help stop any criminal intent on harming or murdering innocent people as in the tragedy in Las Vegas.

  123. My preference I’d the house version. I am less concerned about the generality than I am tha a small modification to the ‘bump stock’ concept would avoid prosecution under the senate version.
    I see no circumstance when private citizens should have access to firearms that shoot a continuous stream of bullets, for any reason.

  124. Thank you for supporting this amendment. The more specific the language, the better. There should be consequences for the dealer who sells them. There is no place in our society for devices like this. They produce killing machines.

  125. The House Amendment is purposely broad. It does not define what “any device” means. “An increase in the rate of fire” brings even more ambiguity; i.e. a trigger job allowing discharging a 10-round clip in less time could be subject to the ban.

    Use the Senate language.

  126. Senator, “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
    If there were a God I would ask him to protect us all from people like you and George Orwell’s 1984 “negative utopia” where all our inalienable rights are being eventually stripped by you, and others being there like “Big Brother”. The magnitude to censor and control every aspect of everyday living, by our elected officials, is incrementally making this “negative utopia” a reality. As a law-abiding Second Amendment supporter, I oppose Amendment 1 to House Bill 3951 offered by state Representative David Linsky, and supported by you and other overbearing censors of the rights of good citizens.
    Once again, misguided gun control laws do not affect criminals, because they are lawless. Passing all the laws you can think of, will not deter criminals, or the mentally ill. It is the good law-abiding citizens that are the ones who suffer by the actions of bad and crazy people. Such over regulation and obtuse, over-reaching laws, make good honest citizens defenseless and very potentially into criminals.
    The broad language in Amendment 1 could be, and will be easily interpreted to ban match grade triggers, ergonomic enhancements, recoil reducing weights and muzzle brakes, and other modifications that countless law-abiding gun owners utilize in order to make their firearms more user friendly and suitable for self-defense, competition, hunting, and even adapting to physical disability. Many of these modifications simply make it easier to deliver accurate and controlled shots with less physical discomfort for the shooter without fundamentally changing the mechanics of how a firearm operates.
    Again, “You’ve done enough.” You must uphold your oath to the US Constitution. Stop Amendment 1 to H.3951, and stop infringing on our inalienable rights, and civil liberties.

  127. Senate’s version is much less ambiguous, and much preferred. As a lawful gun owner, all the House version would do is make me a criminal, regardless of what I own. All it would take is an AG deciding to interpret the ambiguity in a way that effectively makes gun ownership illegal. That should not be the unintended consequence of this legislation.

  128. Senator,The only thing you know about a bump (stock)is when it’s in your pay.You attempting to legislate the 2A away under the guise of “doing something” proves you’ve lost your way.Like your predecessor your another BUM that needs to be primaried.

  129. Although I think this reactionary approach is a useless way to prevent future deaths by focusing on insignificant features of firearms and not focusing on how to actually prevent crime. Preventing violent crime should really be your focus if you care about the lives of your constituents. Either of these bills have no chance of saving a single life from criminals who want to kill. With that said I would prefer the language in the second amendment as the first is too ambiguous.

  130. Senator, thank you for supporting the more reasonable legislative action. The house amendment includes language that is far too vague and allows unelected bureaucrats unfettered power over what can and can’t be modified on firearms. In this state, that’s very dangerous.

  131. I believe there should be a grandfathered clause added to the bill. So as not to make someone who purchased one legally a felon. This is a device is not the thing that is evil. The person that murdered and injured those innocent people was the pure definition of evil.
    It would be like banning cars and trucks because they have been used by terrorists. It would not make a difference if man has evil in mind.
    I wish it would make a difference. Unfortunately it just makes us feel better. We need to look into mental health the last 3 at least mass shootings were due to mental health.
    Thank you for your time Senator
    Ed Cyran

  132. Your push to ban the “bump stock” is mis-guided and ill informed. The bump stock was designed to assist those with disabilities under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) enjoy and participate in the sport of shooting. This law appears to be aimed at the disabled persons, of which I am one. I own a “bump stock” and it assist me in my sport. Are you aware, that you do not need a bump stock attachment for bump shoot a gun? How do you address that? This knee jerk reaction by many people after the senseless tragedy in Vegas is short sighted. You had one nut job who did everything legal and acting out this rage. The bump fire does not convert a semi-automatic gun to a machine gun as you stated. So incorrect its not even funny. The BATFE approved the device as it fires one bullet with each trigger pull, whereas a machine gun does not. Never before has a bump stock been apparently used to kill so many. Yet everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Similar to the airline shoe bomber who tried to light an explosive with a lighter that required an electrical detonation. Now we all have to remove ur shoes at the airports. What have you (the government body) done to eliminate drunk drivers? State still sells alcohol, correct? Kills more people. What about opioids? Those are still prescribed. What about vehicles used to mow down pedestrians? Haven’t regulated that. If someone is crazy, repeat crazy, enough to kill others, they will succeed, one way or another. This measure, while against disabled persons, is not the way to go. I don’t expect to change any votes, everyones mind is already made up. An AR15 for example, or Ak , etc can still fire just as fast, and more accurately without a bump fire, proving that this measure will have no effect on crazies. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctz-QH2ug-A


    1. The sheeple really believe the government has this kind of unilateral authority.From where?

  134. Thank you for this forum. The senate language is preferred. This House version could be interpreted to include, virtually, any modification made to a firearm to improve its intended function (a better quality bolt to reduce friction in a bolt-action rifle, for instance).

    I also would be against any way for an entity to “regulate” how anyone modifies a firearm. Out of respect for our 2nd amendment, I believe any change to existing rules should be through the legislative branch, allowing for debate and consideration by elected officials, resulting in law.

    Please always keep in mind that these laws will affect ONLY those who choose to obey the law. The madman in Vegas broke a score of laws (at least) as he unleashed his evil. Would an additional law have done much?

    You cannot legislate criminal behavior to create a law-abiding citizen.

  135. The Senate language is a better bill; broad language that can be interpreted to further limit constitutional rights by a politician/AG is concerning, especially when it won’t prevent gun violence

  136. I agree with regulation of bump stocks and cranks, they appear to have been developed for disabled people but were obviously used for other purposes with horrific consequences. I disagree that the broad definition and assignment of the determination to the Attorney General. Many people modify the trigger of a firearm for competition to improve their scores and this could be considered an illegal improvement as written as potentially it could considered an improvement to increase the rate of fire. I appreciate your thoughtful consideration on this matter.

  137. Thank you, MA legislature, for taking this action and continuing to use common sense gun regulation in our state. It is one of the key reasons that my family and I live in MA and we will continue to vote in the interest of strict gun control and common sense laws.
    Thank you.
    Kate Russillo

  138. It just amazes me how rapidly the Massachusettts legislature moves without debate and due process when it involves gun control. But when it comes to pressing matters that impact the commonwealth they are deaf and dumb. Except for voting themselves a pay raise. There really is not much to say, they just disgust and make me sick.

  139. Sorry guys but you really need to take the time and write the laws correctly. There also needs to be time for public input – Like the upskirt bill which was passed in a record 36 hours of an SJC decision – no matter what the subject there should be time for the citizens to weigh in (not that I objected to the upskirt bill – but it was passed so fast no one really had enough time to read it or provide valuable input )

  140. I feel it has already been addressed in current legislation. I also agree that if the new language should pass there would definitely be Infoseek consequences on law abiding citizens who own firearms. The language as you said is vague and can be left to interpretation as we just went through under the rifle ban which is ridiculous.

    Thanks for your email

  141. I am a fierce supporter of gun rights of law-abiding citizens, but I have no objection to restrictions on access to bump stocks. Why would anyone need one? But the rush to “be first in the nation” once again is defining how this law is being drafted. Let’s take the time to write a law that will not infringe any more on gun owners’ rights than MA law and regulation already do.

  142. I would be inclined to wait and see what the Federal Government does with this.

    However, if we must pass legislation I would strongly recommend the Senate version which bans specific devices which are designed to approximate the behavior of full automatic weapons using a semiautomatic weapon.

    The house version is very broad and poorly written. It is very vague and does not even specify that it only applies to semi-automatic weapons. It could include any modification or action which improves the reliability, smoothness, accuracy, etc. It could even include maintenance, cleaning, oiling.

    Thanks very much for asking for our comments.

    Respectfully, Steve

  143. Thanks for the opportunity to express my opinion. I do not support this law because i believe that it will have no impact on deranged people, like Paddock, or others who are bent on mass killings. The folks we do not have to worry about, caring law abiding people, will be the only folks affected. If you feel obliged to pass this law then I strongly urge you to support the more definitive Senate version. Thank you.

  144. I strongly support gun control and am happy MA has led on this issue. My question was whether the House bill creates a new mandatory minimum, with possible unforeseen negative consequences.

  145. The Senate language, as I’m sure you know, is FAR better than the language of the house. Please let this language be the changed added to ban bump stocks and other similar devices. We already have stress as gun owners with the AGs enforcement notice creating “felons in waiting”. There is no need to create additional attacks on the minority group that is Gun Owners in the Bay State.

  146. I strongly support this. I do not agree with the grey areas that the senate has passed. As a law obiding xitizen it is not acceptable to be so unsure of what is legal or illegal, especially given the drastic consequences. Thank you for defending our rights

  147. I don’t think either amendment will make the next shooting any less deadly. That said, I would be willing to accept the senate version, as it is specific in its intent, as all laws should be. It still leaves a legal route to ownership, being regulated like machine guns. The house version is extremely broad, and written without the proper firearm knowledge. Thanks for opening up a forum for this discussion, and being receptive to comments. I believe you really want to know what people think, and that is very much appreciated. Thanks

  148. Evil cannot be legislated. Criminals, by definition, ignore the law. If you must ban then please don’t use the House approach which is too general, not well written and will create unwanted encroachment on law abiding citizen’s rights. The Senate’s version appears to more specific and less troublesome.

  149. While I feel that bump stocks were basically a gimmick designed to fire rapidly and have fun at the range, I also feel that they are a waste of ammunition ( which is expensive ) and clearly dangerous in the hands of a lunatic and won’t be missed by many who enjoy the shooting hobby.
    However, I also feel strongly about the second amendment, especially the part stating that “ the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.”
    This being said, I feel that just a ban on bump stocks and trigger cranks isn’t the end of the world for most, but allowing further restrictions to law abiding gun owners every time some animal goes on a rampage is not fair to the 99.9% of us who are responsible gun owners. Also, why is it that of all the amendments, the second is the only one which is always attacked and challenged as well as the firearms being blamed, when it is usually a mental health or criminal issue which should be blamed.
    Thanks for letting us share our views on this subject and hopefully something good will be worked out.

  150. I find it disappointing yet again. Without due process, that knee jerk, generalized and vague Anti 2nd Amendment bills are being pushed and fast tracked which will do nothing to prevent the Non-Lawabiding citizens from any random and/or planed action.
    How many new laws or restrictions of Civil Rights will the Non-Lawabiding citizen choose to follow?
    The answer is none.
    Please stop infringing on the Rights of the Law Abiding.

  151. Sometimes doing something just for the sake of doing it is far worse than doing nothing at all. The language used here is far too vague and too hastily written to enact into law. I realize in the wake of such a horrible disaster in our country we all have the urge to take action but we need to collectively take a step back and address the real issues. We can continue to infringe upon citizens that chose to obey the laws, but that isn’t going to prevent atrocities like this from happening in the future. After all, it’s illegal to abuse prescription drugs but has that really done anything to address the opioid crisis in our state? Stacking laws on top of laws is not going to make a difference here. The desire to want to blame something for what happened and outlaw it isn’t really productive for anyone. The real issue may not be as tangible as a piece of plastic and we may not be able to solve it with one sweeping piece of legislature, but we can’t continue to waste time trying to outlaw one thing after another. Furthermore as others have said, it is incredible how quickly this has moved forward and without due process that all of our citizens are entitled to. We need to stop the knee-jerk reaction of making more and more laws and try to address the real issue of a society that seems to have less and less respect for it’s fellow people every day.

  152. I am an avid gun owner and 2A supporter, and I don’t understand why we are not letting the ATF do its job. They have the role and responsibility to evaluate the technology in this space, and deem what is regulated or not, including FA weapons. As in all of these types of cases, where anyone is killed with any weapon, whether it is a gun, a knife, a car or their bare hands. Criminals and scoff laws will not abide by these, or any other laws, so all we do is crack down on the law abiding citizens who have never committed any act of law breaking. Laws have not stopped the flow of drugs, of human trafficking, or any other of the myriad crimes that take many more lives than any gun acts of violence. The focus here should be on the criminals and the mental health challenges, neither of which are addressed in any way shape or form by this silliness. This is another knee-jerk reaction that will do nothing to provide for the safety or well being of any of your constitutes.

  153. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this legislation.

    Given the understandable desire for new restrictions, I strongly support the Senate wording. The vagueness of the House language leaves open the possibility of future AG reinterpretations of the law. This does nothing more than increase the level of distrust between law-abiding gin owners and the MA legislature as can be seen in the ongoing litigation surrounding the AG’s 2016 Assault Weapon Ban Enforcement Notice.

  154. I agree with a bump-stock ban which puts me in the minority among other NRA members and pro-2A advocates. That said, I understand their position and feel it’s important to be EXTREMELY precise in the language used in this bill. I am glad it was addressed, but the house version of the deal was way too broad. “Any device… except a magazine, that is designed to increase the rate of discharge [of a firearm],” is unacceptable in my opinion. What about a simple trigger swap which is designed to decrease the pull-weight and make the reset shorter? I could argue that this would make my rate of fire go up, but by no means should someone face 20 years imprisonment for this. I know that the senate made some changes here, and that’s good. Still, I think that the language still needs to be tightened and the penalty reduced. Someone who assaults someone with a dangerous weapon faces less time than someone who owns a bump stock. That is completely and totally insane to me that someone who hurts another person faces less jail time than an otherwise a law-abiding citizen who owns a firearm modification. I think a more reasonable penalty would be a permanent loss of their LTC if found in possession of one and a 1 year prison term if found with one attached to their firearm.

  155. While I support regulating bumpstocks and crank devices for triggers, the law proposed in Mass. will not stop anybody that wants to facilitate a mass shooting as the same effect that is created by a bumpstock can be duplicated with a simple rubber band or a belt loop.

  156. Why are we, the law abiding citizens being punished for the acts of lunatics? There has to be a Nother way,

  157. I find it fascinating, how discussion about putting limits on accessories like bump stocks and crank triggers brings out so many people claiming that such a limit would infringe on their rights, citing the 2nd Amendment. This is essentially out of the NRA playbook: if any law affects firearms in any way at all, shout “NO!”

    It’s very simplistic and entirely lacking in nuanced discussion. It also gets the 2nd Amendment wrong. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that protects bump stocks or crank triggers as a “right”. They are not arms.

    1. While your comment is accurate bans on items still do not solve any issues. The argument that AR 15’s and the like are the issue in this country or anything that attaches to them is juvenile. Over 99% of gun crimes are carried out by criminals with illegal handguns.

    2. Todd,

      At least part of the problem here is that you’re not looking at this specific issue in a broader context. To put it simply, if there weren’t so many burdensome, onerous and confusing restrictions on the right already (in MA), you’d probably see much less objection from gun owners. In other words, stacking restriction upon restriction upon restriction (even if the one at the top of the heap is reasonable) makes people fed up.

      As but one example, last year, our AG released a statement that she had reinterpreted the MA Assault Weapon Ban such that any AR15, regardless of features, qualified as an assault weapon per the MA statute. Prior to her stating this, AR15s without the banned features were sold for 18 years with full knowledge of 3 prior AGs, the EOPS (all gun sales are registered) all police,etc.

      It’s also worth noting that the MA statute is a duplicate of the federal ban that went from 1994 to 2004 and these sorts of featureless AR15s were sold with the blessing of the ATF nationwide during that period.

      Healey additionally stated that those sales over that 18 year period were felonies, but she was going to use her discretion to not prosecute.

      Finally, we have two SCOTUS decisions that address this. Heller and Miller. Heller says you have a right to own the sorts of guns that are in common use, referencing the Miller decision. The Miller decision stated that a gun has to have a valid use in the context of a militia to be protected. Hopefully you can do the math here regarding AR15s.

      Then, of course, MA requires a license to own a gun where that license is at the discretion of your local police chief. Imagine licensing voting or any other civil right, requiring a fee and making you fight in court to get it back if your local police chief decides you shouldn’t have that right.

      So, regarding bumpstocks, I do think they’re essentially a full auto device and regulating them as such doesn’t bother me. However, looking at the broader issue, I defy anyone to show me how the right in MA is that and not a privilege. If you think gun owners aren’t cooperative, consider it in the light of what I wrote here.

  158. While I do not advocate for any bans of firearms or related equipment, I do not oppose regulations. With that being said I do appreciate the revision of the first proposed bill which would have surely sparked conflict among lawful citizens. In the future I hope to see the reverse of laws which violate the rights of free people and put us at a disadvantage to criminals such as magazine restrictions.

  159. I wholeheartedly agree with most of the rreplies to this forum. I agree that the house wording is too strong, and if something is to be passed it should be the Senate proposal. Of course neither will stop the unlawful as they are already willing to break the laws of not killing of others. If they are going to break that law, then what law can congress hope to pass that they won’t break? I’m tired of seeING and hearing about “more gun control” everytime something happens. Funny I don’t see politicians going after the alcool industry or the automotive industry everytime there is a drunk driving incident, and these have been happening sincerely prohibition ended…On a side note. Thank you for distributing this post to keep people informed and for offering a forum in which to hear the people’s concerns.

  160. The Senate’s wording is specific to address those devices that allow the semiauto to emulate full auto (Or “machine gun”) operation. The House wording is too broad and so open to interpretation that it could result in prohibition of modifications commonly performed for competitive sport shooting.

    That said, the overall problem, in my opinion, is not the absence of legislation but the absence of enforcement and,in particular, sentencing. How many times has the Commonwealth sent anyone to prison for unlicensed use in commission of a crime? I’ll wager that that law is virtually never fully implemented.

  161. As a strong 2A supporter and responsible gun owner, I do oppose bans on firearms and accessories, but I do not have an objection to “restrictions” on bump stocks. But in all honesty, another law is not going to save lives. It is not the LAW ABIDING people breaking the laws. It may make some people feel good we have yet another gun law, but it is a false sense of security, and ultimately infringing on the rights of responsible gun owners.

    Please do not rush just to say we did something first and let the Federal Government drive a unified approach.

    Ideally we should be focusing on mental health, and those that break the current laws, but knowing that Massachusetts will move forward to do something on bump stocks, the House wording is too vague opening this up for varied interpretation. Even though the Senate version is better, it still needs to be improved, by being very clear on the specific intended device(s) and not be open to interpretation of “modifications” such as lighter triggers. We have already seen how our AG is “RE-interpreted” laws with her view!

    Take your time and do NOT rush to get something on the books.

  162. I appreciate the ability to make a comment and that the legislature wants to be pro-active in addressing this brewing issue.

    Thus far, I have not seen anyone articulate how either of the proposed bills will actually prevent another Las Vegas type event. Bump stocks and trigger cranks are simple devices that can easily be fabricated even if you do not want to buy one illegally or legally somewhere else.

    The result will be another regulation piled onto law abiding gun owners while criminals and mentally deranged will still use the devices.

    So, Senator Brownsberger, until you can articulate how any of these bills will actually make the nutcase shooter issue better, in light of incrementally infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens, it would be much better to do nothing.

  163. This is a typical Massachusetts knee-jerk reaction to any gun related incident. Don’the take time to research and come to an intelligent and reasonable conclusion. Simply punish the law abiding citizens and BAN IT.

  164. This is utterly ridiculous legislation that will accomplish nothing and only makes those on Beacon Hill feel all warm and fuzzy inside for doing “something”. In reality, this legislation is another nothingburger of nonsense that will have no impact on insane people bent on killing people en masse.

    The Beacon Hill masterminds of MA that work tirelessly on rebuking individual rights and liberties one law at a time are at it again with bump stock bans. Another knee-jerk reaction by the masterminds of society that know everything about everything in their endless quest for utopia.

    Get a real job…

    1. You are so correct, Robert. Also, the laws already on the books need to be reinforced. The Legislature is always ready to “justify” their existence by passing needless laws.

    2. Most of them don’t know what a “real job” is. DON’T RE-ELECT’EM — JUST REJECT’EM.

  165. Senator Brownsberger, thank you for reaching out. Like all sane Americans I was sickened by the act of a madman in Los Vegas. Like many my knee jerk reaction was bump stocks should be banned, as I have no need for a “machine gun”. However as I thought more about this there are current laws in place that govern ownership and use of “machine guns” shouldn’t these laws be looked at for any actions related to bump stocks?

    My main concern is that additional vague over reach laws like the house bill proposes will be reinterpreted into something that well meaning legislators caught up in the emotions of the moment did not intend. As was recently demonstrated by our current Attorney General when she bypassed the legislature and “redefined” laws you put in place 20 plus years ago. Because of this I do not support and request that you not support the bills.

  166. This is just another feel good piece of legislation that will do nothing to protect the public or stop things like this from happening. Mental health reform needs to be at the top of the list if you want to make a real difference. I do not support this or any other restriction on law abiding citizens freedoms.

  167. History has shown that legislation including ambiguous, or a complete lack of, definition can be used for unintended restriction of lawful and useful items. I, personally, favor legislation with specific and defined reference to the items being regulated.

  168. Dear Senator Brownsberger,

    I’m an avid Hunter and sports shooter. I agree with the criticism of the house bill and share their concern about the broad language. I also believe bump stocks are dangerous and make the gun fire in a manner it’s not design. This ultimately makes it less controllable. They should be banned. I 100% agree with the approach used in the Senate Bill. Please push the house to drop their bill and pass the Senates unmodified. They both accomplish the same goal.



  169. Thank you to the House and Senate for working on this amendment. I agree with your perspective, Sen. Brownsberger, and would like to have an amendment does not create unintended consequences.

    Simultaneously, could we also further fund addressing the mental health issues that lead to this loss of life? Let’s always address both together. Perhaps that would mitigate some of the hurt the law abiding gun owners experience when they feel threatened by the public’s reactions to the shooting sprees of others.

    Is there a legal use for semi-automatic firearms for which regular firearms are not suitable? I understand that some people want these for sport. Can it not still be a sport using less lethal (but still lethal) tools?

    I also do not want any other families to lose a member to gun violence. I and the rest of my law abiding family are among those who lost a member to gun violence in a crime elsewhere. These crimes just don’t affect individuals and families, but whole communities and our society. The American Medical Association considers it a public health crisis.

    Please encourage the legislature to address this in a comprehensive manner. Perhaps examining the public health research would help guide a science based response.

    Thank you, as always, for sharing your considerations of issues before the legislature in these forums and giving your constituents a place to respond.

    1. I agree that mental health is always overlooked and the tool is blamed, this is a good point.

      Can you clarify what a “regular” firearm is?

  170. This is just the typical racist and bigoted attitude that liberals have towards law abiding fire arm owners.

    Maybe they should spend some time, passing laws to outlaw drug dealers and gangs, or actually bringing jobs into massachusetts instead of driving them away.


  172. Senator Brownsberger,

    Thanks for taking the time to reach out to the community on this issue. I oppose the ban, but given that it is going to happen (which seems like a near-certainty at this point), I’m eager to do what I can to assist with producing a high-quality bill that will accomplish its purpose with as few unintended consequences as possible.

    The Senate bill is far superior to the House version. It gives a clear and precise definition of what is prohibited, in words that cannot reasonably be interpreted to reach much beyond their intent. In contrast, the House bill does not even attempt to achieve this, instead abdicating this responsibility to unelected and unaccountable regulators.

    I am concerned about the implementability of the provisions to notify current owners of prohibited items. Bump stocks are considered gun parts, not guns, therefore they do not require licensing or registration; no database exists of who owns them. Notification therefore cannot occur on anything better than a best-effort basis, and passage of this law is therefore likely to result in creating some small number of inadvertent felons.

  173. No bump fire stocks do not make a semi automatic gun into a fully automatic gun. They basically turn a firearms into a less accurate version of that firearm. I do not want one but there is no positive result from banning them. It won’t reduce crime or maky anyone any safer. Just like 99% of all the other knee jerk gun regulations that are too broad and ambiguous.

  174. I am not in favor of any more gun restrictions. You people in washington always pick on law abiding citizens while you work for lighter sentences for the criminals. Start executing the violent criminals first.

  175. When a truck mows down 28 people, blame is on the driver.
    When a machete attack kills a bunch of people, blame the attacker.
    When a pressure cooker kills people, blame the person who planted it.
    When a gun kills people, blame the gun.

    I don’t own a bump stock, nor do I want one. But let’s put the blame on mental health and personal responsibility, not a hunk of plastic.

  176. I agree with the Senate version. The language needs to be clear and concise. I do not believe a mandatory jail sentence should apply for possession as these devices have been legally obtainable for a long period of time. Criminalizing anything that has been legal previously causes too many problems. Possibly special licensing for these devices so gun clubs could have one available for special events could eliminate a lot of push back from gun owner groups.
    I would think it would be fun to try a full auto rifle in a controlled environment but I would have no interest in owning one. If a rental at a target range had something like these available I might try one for a fun outing. I enjoy target practice as I am sure many firearms owners do. I do not want my rights taken away but I see no reason to allow anyone access to full automatic firearms.
    ANY wording that is so broad that it could include minor modifications that make firearms easier to operate, is just too restrictive. Please do not act in haste and open the state up to lawsuits. Also be careful not to criminalize law abiding citizens for “tuning ” their own firearms to their liking.
    Thank you.

  177. I agree with the Senate version because like other people said it’s going to happen I don’t have a problem with the bump stock I do have a problem with all the other modifications that for the most part are all legal

  178. If I must support a version it would be the Senate version. The House version is poorly written.

  179. More gun regulations are not the answer as they only apply to the law abiding citizen. The criminals and mentally unstable will still commit these unthinkable acts with whatever means possible. The House amendment is to broad and could lead to making any alteration illegal. The Senates amendment is much clear and looks to only regulate Bump stocks and crank triggers.

Comments are closed.