• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

2023 MA Gun Ban: House has engrossed H.4139, waiting on Senate

Oh look:
  1. This section shall not apply to transfer or possession by: (i) qualified law enforcement
  2. 1652 officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers as defined in the Law Enforcement
  3. 1653 Officers Safety Act of 2004,18 U.S.C. sections 926B and 926C, respectively, as amended; (ii) a
  4. 1654 federal, state or local law enforcement agency; or (iii) federally licensed manufacturers solely for
  5. 1655 sale or transfer in another state or for export.

Looks like the evangelism to oppose this with the local PD's and Chiefs associations just got a lot harder. Who would have seen that coming?
 
Last edited:
SIGNES said:
Oh look:
  1. This section shall not apply to transfer or possession by: (i) qualified law enforcement
  2. 1652 officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers as defined in the Law Enforcement
  3. 1653 Officers Safety Act of 2004,18 U.S.C. sections 926B and 926C, respectively, as amended; (ii) a
  4. 1654 federal, state or local law enforcement agency; or (iii) federally licensed manufacturers solely for
  5. 1655 sale or transfer in another state or for export.

Looks like the evangelism to oppose this with the local PD's and Chiefs associations just got a lot harder. Who would have seen that coming?
Click to expand...
Literally everyone saw it coming; but the PD opposition was required to get here. Now we find out where they really stand.

If/when this passes, we’ll also find out if FFLs will be willing to sell “LEO only” stuff, and if NES will still buy from those FFLs….
 
Grendizer138 said:
Literally everyone saw it coming; but the PD opposition was required to get here. Now we find out where they really stand.

If/when this passes, we’ll also find out if FFLs will be willing to sell “LEO only” stuff, and if NES will still buy from those FFLs….
Click to expand...
That and every club needs to tell the PD's to go find someplace else to qualify and train. Plus no more free keys. I knew of at least one club in the Greater Lowel Area that did that.
 
The problem is politicians face no consequences whatsoever for pushing blatantly unconstitutional legislation. They should be afraid of the public throwing bricks at them if they violate their oath of office. They should wonder if their police detail will turn on them for being tyrannical.
A man can dream
 
Further search and scan indicates (I've not been able to read line by line) that the barrel serialization, live fire tests and at least the worst of the shipping limitations are also gone. This is still a pile of stink but now it might be in a place where G.O.A.L. and we can at least dull the sharp edges to something we can live with while waiting for the courts to more fully un%^&* it.

EDIT: To be VERY clear, a) I haven't looked at every word. b) It's still a #$%^&show. c) It shouldn't pass (but likely will). d) I hate every word of it. e) My point about 'living with after some negotiation' is a position of realism in our current climate not a "no big deal, what's so bad?" position.

Oh, and one more edit: The 'only on private property with explicit permission' (still in the bill) is ripe for court challenge, unenforceable and completely undermines the whole notion of self defense carry.

And one more edit thanks to @ddeck22. Live fire training is still in there at line 1324.

No more edits. New info coming to light for me will be new posts.
 
Last edited:
Dcdr said:
The problem is politicians face no consequences whatsoever for pushing blatantly unconstitutional legislation. They should be afraid of the public throwing bricks at them if they violate their oath of office. They should wonder if their police detail will turn on them for being tyrannical.
A man can dream
Click to expand...
with a 68-70% voting block, they don't care about consequences.
 
SIGNES said:
Further search and scan indicates (I've not been able to read line by line) that the barrel serialization, live fire tests and at least the worst of the shipping limitations are also gone. This is still a pile of stink but now it might be in a place where G.O.A.L. and we can at least dull the sharp edges to something we can live with while waiting for the courts to more fully un%^&* it.
Click to expand...
f*** you and this “we” shit. NO more infringements
 
SIGNES said:
Further search and scan indicates (I've not been able to read line by line) that the barrel serialization, live fire tests and at least the worst of the shipping limitations are also gone. This is still a pile of stink but now it might be in a place where G.O.A.L. and we can at least dull the sharp edges to something we can live with while waiting for the courts to more fully un%^&* it.

EDIT: To be VERY clear, a) I haven't looked at every word. b) It's still a #$%^&show. c) It shouldn't pass (but likely will). d) I hate every word of it. e) My point about 'living with after some negotiation' is a position of realism in our current climate not a "no big deal, what's so bad?" position.

Oh, and one more edit: The 'only on private property with explicit permission' (still in the bill) is ripe for court challenge, unenforceable and completely undermines the whole notion of self defense carry.
Click to expand...
Live fire training still in there...line 1324.
 
SIGNES said:
Further search and scan indicates (I've not been able to read line by line) that the barrel serialization, live fire tests and at least the worst of the shipping limitations are also gone. This is still a pile of stink but now it might be in a place where G.O.A.L. and we can at least dull the sharp edges to something we can live with while waiting for the courts to more fully un%^&* it.

EDIT: To be VERY clear, a) I haven't looked at every word. b) It's still a #$%^&show. c) It shouldn't pass (but likely will). d) I hate every word of it. e) My point about 'living with after some negotiation' is a position of realism in our current climate not a "no big deal, what's so bad?" position.

Oh, and one more edit: The 'only on private property with explicit permission' (still in the bill) is ripe for court challenge, unenforceable and completely undermines the whole notion of self defense carry.
Click to expand...
Stop with trying to compromise our rights away
 
SIGNES said:
Oh look:
  1. This section shall not apply to transfer or possession by: (i) qualified law enforcement
  2. 1652 officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers as defined in the Law Enforcement
  3. 1653 Officers Safety Act of 2004,18 U.S.C. sections 926B and 926C, respectively, as amended; (ii) a
  4. 1654 federal, state or local law enforcement agency; or (iii) federally licensed manufacturers solely for
  5. 1655 sale or transfer in another state or for export.

Looks like the evangelism to oppose this with the local PD's and Chiefs associations just got a lot harder. Who would have seen that coming?
Click to expand...
There's got to be some sort of constitutional protection against setting up a special class of citizen. If you're not on duty your just a slob like the rest of us.
 
I used to think compromise was reasonable, but the fact it is a dishonest deal I think it all really needs to go. Any chance this will get overturned by other states having their laws challenged. I ran across this video on Chinese knife control being rolled out. Change the world Knife to Gun and it is basically what this and other liberal state policies are.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qjjs21Ysv8
 
AJK129 said:
Stop with trying to compromise our rights away
Click to expand...
I'm not getting back into this beyond the following. Unlike a closed sale contract for a house, a bill that passes after you fought back the worst of it doesn't stand forever. It gets worse or better based on courts and new legislation. You can either kick your toys out of the pram and do nothing, or you can try to blunt the pain in the meantime.

Our rights are being threatened. They will be reduced in MA. It's fact, and we need only look to the whole history of Michael Day to see that. It's fact. It's fact that may be fixed by the courts. It's fact that may be fixed by getting somebody else in his office by election, but, for now, it's fact that he won't stop until he passes something. Tantrum all you like but tantrums don't create affirmative acknowledgment of rights. This is especially true when there is no effort to win public support and empathy for your position. Legislation and courts do. So, while we wait for courts and elections, you negotiate.
 
Dcdr said:
The problem is politicians face no consequences whatsoever for pushing blatantly unconstitutional legislation. They should be afraid of the public throwing bricks at them if they violate their oath of office. They should wonder if their police detail will turn on them for being tyrannical.
A man can dream
Click to expand...
if ever there was a time for scotus to revisit qualified immunity ...
 

Similar threads

Bill H.4139
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ron Jablonski
R
Beyond ‘Ghost Guns’: Democrat House Member Pushes ‘Zombie Gun’ Ban
Replies
10
Views
434
quinnjalan
quinnjalan
Maine: Only One Vote Needed to Kill Waiting Periods
Replies
2
Views
241
dfritz
D
Smart gun will put fingerprint, facial recognition technology to work: Biofire has called it the 'first and only biometric firearm on the market'
2
Replies
42
Views
609
JuergenG
JuergenG
Ma. March gun auction Major SUCCESS.
Replies
3
Views
290
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
Back
Top Bottom