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.

Comments are closed.