Barrios Report

[Scrivener]

Since Massachusetts doesn't register firearms, I'd tell the Trooper "We don't have any," and they offer him a cup of coffee.

"Massachusetts doesn't register firearms?!"

That will be astounding news to anyone who filed an FA-10.

Note that Barrios' "logic" is the same abuse of power manifested by the chiefs of Newton and Brookline, demanding "range tests;" and Andover, Lowell, etc., demanding "doctor's letters" from applicants in those towns.

Next they'll demand "authorizations" permitting unannounced, warrantless searches to ensure compliance w/storage requirements, liability insurance for each gun and blood/hair/semen samples with each application.

You know - to ascertain "suitability and thus "save the children" and "make our streets safe."

 

[Mr Weebles]

Scriv,

Would you be so kind as to answer what I asked earlier in the thread? Would this be a violation of the 4th Amendment? Or would this just be considered a "regulatory" action and the 4th not be applicable?

Thanks.

 

[kevin9]

Kevin & RKG,

We're all on the same page.

Agree

It's just the fine line between a legal definition and the reality of MA.

Whatever one calls it it's still too much.

I agree we should continue beating this dead horse.

BTW, I think Barrios is too stupid to realize that the current registration scheme is broken . . . and I really don't want to give him the opportunity to have us all account for our possessions annually, allow for the MSP to search our homes, etc. that he'd like.

+1
It seems to me the long range goal is to ensure gun-grabbers like Barrios remain at most a minority in our government. Unfortunately that's a long row to hoe in the current political climate.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Damn, I meant "I agree we should NOT continue beating this dead horse"

 

[kevin9]

Scriv,

Would you be so kind as to answer what I asked earlier in the thread? Would this be a violation of the 4th Amendment? Or would this just be considered a "regulatory" action and the 4th not be applicable?

Thanks.

I'd consider it an infringement on 4th Amendment rights but IANAL. I quite imagine Barrios et. al. will claim that it is not by virtue of being regulatory or conditional of a privilege or some other legal mumbo-jumbo.

 

[kevin9]

Damn, I meant "I agree we should NOT continue beating this dead horse"

I figured that

 

[Scrivener]

FA-10, the successor to the "blue card," records a transfer transaction; it does not register a firearm.

Come, come, counselor. You, and most people on this forum, know that is inaccurate.

Filing an FA-10 registers the gun in your name with the state. The only non-registered guns are those people brought with them when they moved here, most of those transfers which predate the FA-10 system (as most blue cards were not processed) and transfers which were illegal, if for no other reason than the failure to submit the FA-10.

If you still wish to claim otherwise, explain the records of such transfers in the computer banks of the CHSB and the fact that one can check the state's records of one's firearms inventory by submitting the proper request and $25 fee.

 

[Coyote33]

Wait...lemme get this straight. It's okay for them to come to MY home and check MY guns, but it's not okay for the SP to arrest illegals?????

I can't take this anymore.....

So, the $64 question is which laws should be followed, and which can be ignored? They (the enforcers) don't have any consistency. Are speed limits and stop signs the first to go out the window? Just claim you are an illegal? I give up.

 

[JonJ]

I'm surprised the comments are still on the blog.

 

[RKG]

So much for Len's deceased nag:

In New York, if you have a pistol permit, the particular firearm that it authorizes you to carry has to be listed on the permit. The permit is not valid for any other firearm, and mere possession of any firearm that is not listed on the permit is an offense. This is registration of the firearm.

In Massachusetts, you cannot make out a prima facie case of a 10(a) violation (or any other violation) by proving only that X owns (or possesses) a firearm and that firearm does not appear on any blue card or FA-10 in the state's possession.

Now I did not at any point make any contention about the functional similarity between registration of firearms and the Massachusetts system of recording certain transfers of certain firearms. My only point, on which I stand, is that were Senor Barrios to succeed in enacting a statutory obligation to display on request all of one's "registered firearms" (in haec verba), a perfectly valid response would be "none." I thought this an effective, possibly even humorous, way of highlighting Senor Barrior's violation of the rule that a state leglislator ought to know something about what he is legislating about.

 

[LoginName]

ALERT TO ALL GUN OWNERS Chapter 180 Part II? It could be happening!

GOALs response to the insanity...

ALERT TO ALL GUN OWNERS

Chapter 180 Part II? It could be happening!


Recently, Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) received a draft copy of a report from the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security entitled “Illegal Gun Trafficking and Youth Gun Violence: Creating Smart Strategies to Combat Gun Violence among Youth in the Commonwealth.” This report essentially recommends Chapter 180 Part II! (In the report, “… State Police be assigned the duty of making periodic checks of registered guns.”)


Below is a copy of the letter we are sending to the Committee in response to this report. By no means does the letter address every concern we have with the report as that would take dozens of pages. We urge all lawful gun owners to read what the Committee is putting forth along with GOAL's first response and prepare yourselves for the fight that lies ahead.


GOAL Letter to Committee members

April 2007

Dear Legislator,

Recently, Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) received a draft copy of a report from the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security entitled “Illegal Gun Trafficking and Youth Gun Violence: Creating Smart Strategies to Combat Gun Violence among Youth in the Commonwealth.” After reviewing the document, GOAL is greatly concerned that the recommendations put forth in this report are a continuance of the tragic mistakes made in 1998.

Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998 created some of the most confusing and prosecutorial set of gun laws in the country. The vast majority of those new laws attacked lawful gun owners and did little, if anything to address violent crime. In fact, since its passage, the rate of gun related homicides per hundred thousand residents has increased by sixty four percent! (See GOAL’s report at http://www.goal.org/news/truth.htm )

The bulk of the recommendations in this report ignore the lessons that should have been learned from previous attacks on lawful gun owners. We had hoped to have been presented with some innovative ways to combat the criminal element on our streets. Instead we have been presented with more attacks on lawful citizens. One recommendation actually suggests that, “… State Police be assigned the duty of making periodic checks of registered guns.” We cannot imagine a day when law enforcement would come to our homes to inventory our private property.

We offer this brief summary for your review. To make it easier to understand from GOAL’s perspective, we have separated the report’s recommendations into three categories.

Snipped for brevity. Full commentary at...

http://www.goal.org/PS/Chapter180part2.htm

 

[JonJ]

The dink (Barrios) has thanked everyone on his blog for their comments. Wow.

 

[boltonguy]

Looks like he took down the drafts ...

 

[Lynne]

Looks like he took down the drafts ...

Is that good or bad??

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Is that good or bad??

Likely bad,.....he probably read the responses and is trying to weasle some way to reconfigure/reword his police state scheme to appear less intrusive to gun owners and more appealing to the sheeple to garner support.

He needs to be voted out of office at the first opportunity and prosecuted for conspiring to violate the constitutional rights of the citizens of Massachusetts.
If that was "his best thinking" on the matter, he has absolutely no place in any public office making decisions that govern the behavior of others. He's a political hack like most of of those who hold office in this state and belongs in a prison cell.

 

[LoginName]

Likely bad,.....he probably read the responses and is trying to weasle some way to reconfigure/reword his police state scheme to appear less intrusive to gun owners and more appealing to the sheeple to garner support.

Doubt that's the reason... he's an unapologetic shit-stain and he can't undo the public record even if he wanted to.

Most likely reason ... the original links on his blog were in a .doc format (someone on his blog complained that it was an inappropriate format), and the webmaster is correcting the brain fart.

FWIW... the links he had on his website crashed my MS Word. I wasn't even able to read the asshats proposal in full until yesterday when GOAL posted it in a .PDF format.

http://www.goal.org/PS/Chapter180part2.htm

 

[drgrant]

In Massachusetts, you cannot make out a prima facie case of a 10(a) violation (or any other violation) by proving only that X owns (or possesses) a firearm and that firearm does not appear on any blue card or FA-10 in the state's possession.

Would this explain why I've never heard of anyone getting
prosecuted for failing to file an FA-10 form? The state is so sloppy
I think nobody has ever been prosecuted because they're afraid of
the system being embarrassed in the process.

-Mike

 

[RKG]

Would this explain why I've never heard of anyone getting
prosecuted for failing to file an FA-10 form? The state is so sloppy
I think nobody has ever been prosecuted because they're afraid of
the system being embarrassed in the process.

-Mike

Entirely different matter. Assuming proof of a transfer and failure to file an FA-10, a case could be made for violation of ch. 140, secs. 128 and 128A.

 

[drgrant]

Entirely different matter. Assuming proof of a transfer and failure to file an FA-10, a case could be made for violation of ch. 140, secs. 128 and 128A.

Now that I'm reading C269 10(a) (which I guess is what you were referring to
earlier) this is even more confusing.... why would whether or not a
gun is "registered" come into play? (unless they were also trying to charge
someone under the sections you mentioned).

-Mike

 

[RKG]

Now that I'm reading C269 10(a) (which I guess is what you were referring to
earlier) this is even more confusing.... why would whether or not a
gun is "registered" come into play? (unless they were also trying to charge
someone under the sections you mentioned).

-Mike

It wouldn't. That was the point I started out trying to make, more in jest than anything. Out of tiny acorns . . . .

 

[Twigg]

Is it possible

To somehow charge (Sue, arrest, censor, impeach or whatever you wanna call it...) Barrios with failing to uphold his oath of office ?

He did take an oath of office swearing to uphold the constitution didn't he ? By recommending to have the state police enter our homes, wouldn't that (as this was already mentioned) be a clear violation of the 4th amendment ?

Or do we have to wait until the home invasions (police "checks") begin ?

 

[RKG]

To somehow charge (Sue, arrest, censor, impeach or whatever you wanna call it...) Barrios with failing to uphold his oath of office ?

He did take an oath of office swearing to uphold the constitution didn't he ? By recommending to have the state police enter our homes, wouldn't that (as this was already mentioned) be a clear violation of the 4th amendment ?

Or do we have to wait until the home invasions (police "checks") begin ?

Not the answer you're looking for, and not to suggest that merely sponsoring and voting for legislation that is either idiotic or later held to be unconstitutional amounts to failing to abide by oath of office, but the legal process to challenge the actions of a public official as beyond his authority is the writ of quo warranto. However, only the Attorney General may seek such a writ.

 

[Major D Ret.]

Catchall

Be advised:

Recommendations of the Barrios document call for applicants/renewers of
LTCs/FIDs to submit a list of every gun in their possession to the licensing
authority under the penalties of perjury for false or incomplete information.

Damned if you do! Damned if you don't!

Comply or no license! Lie and go to jail! Resistance is futile!

Then comes the Goldylocks squeeze. These guns are too big and powerful
and those guns are too small and concealable. Ban 'em! Wait 'til the next session of the legislature and do it again with what's still legal. Continue
until all guns are outlawed. Then start on water pistols. After that, knives.

This entire report reeks with the stench of John Rosenthal and his rump swab
Jerry Belair.

To hell with preaching to the choir! Get the hell off this web site and write a letter to your senator, your representative, and every member of the Homeland Security/Public Safety Committee and tell them what they need to know - you're a pissed off, squeaky clean, law abiding, vengeful voter and Barrios is a treasonous moon bat who should be locked up for his own protection.

Do it or die!

This will take about an hour and cost you about six bucks for paper, envelopes, ink and postage.

Be nice. No name calling or threats. Twenty letters received on an issue is a huge attention getter. But it's got to be hard copy! Phone calls and Email don't mean shit! I say again, phone calls and Email don't mean shit! Get it?

Let's pretend for now that the pen is mightier than the sword. We'll keep our other options out of sight until they back us into a corner.

Major D

P.S.

No man escapes when freedom fails.
The best men rot in filthy jails.
And those who cry, "appease, appease."
Are hanged by those they tried to please.

Thomas Mann