Article 34

The proposed gun ban is now officially Article 34 on the town meeting warrant.  If you follow the link, you  will see that the text of the article is a very general and high-level summary.  The precise language of the ban, including all the technical details, will be submitted in the form of a motion prior to the annual town meeting.

While we don’t yet have this language, we have repeatedly been told it will closely follow the Highland Park, IL ban.  Highland Park seems an odd choice for a model, however, given that Massachusetts, unlike Illinois, already has a statewide ban on both “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.

Yard sign design

3 responses to “Article 34

  1. This is something that has me puzzled. If the State already has a ban on mags over 10 rounds and the language of the Article ends up being the same, what exactly will the difference be for the Lexington ordinance? Maybe it would be turned down based on redundancy.

    Of course, if the language is broader or calls for “10 rounds” or more, we have a severe problem. If the Article says something along the lines of anything that can accept a 10 round mag then who knows what that could mean, and who would define that? But maybe an approach is to say this Article is in no way different than the State ban already in place, so what are we actually doing?

    I’m really left wondering if Mr. Rotberg’s proposed Article will be any different than the State ban already in place. Can anyone enlighten?

  2. From this article http://www.youngcons.com/lexington-facing-semi-automatic-gun-confiscation/ they say that any firearm that can accept a magazine over 10 rounds is included, so basically any magazine fed firearm. I’m not sure where that article got its info from.

  3. Jonathan, I believe the claim about the ability to accept a hi-cap magazine (> 10 rounds) probably originated from the the bill sponsor’s original pitch to Town Meeting members (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lextmma/T1CdSjCCq1E/5y7NNrE3CwAJ) — although you are correct in that this doesn’t seem to be explicit in the motion draft we received and published.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *