-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Delete
- Thread starter crypto
- Start date
Taking a deep breath
Yesterday a local newspaper writer Marc Folco and a few other gun rights advocates were meeting with the mayor here in New Bedford. Marc Folco has voiced opposition to the mayor's recent call for more strict laws and a military style weapons ban.
Heres the latest from today's paper:
Lang's proposal followed strip club attack
By DAVID KIBBE, Standard-Times staff writer
BOSTON — State legislators had a cautious reaction to New Bedford Mayor Scott W. Lang's call this week for a statewide ban on the sale of military-style weapons like the AR-15 used in last week's fatal shootings of two employees at the Foxy Lady in New Bedford.
Earlier this week, Lang called it a "killing tool. ... It's a weapon that's used to destroy an opposition army. We don't need a battlefield in the middle of our city."
Rep. John F. Quinn, a Dartmouth Democrat whose district includes part of the city, said he wanted to take more time to study the issue.
"I'm certainly open to reviewing any type of legislation, but at the outset, we've got some of the toughest gun laws in the country on the books now," Quinn said. "A rule of thumb I follow, I never file any bills within one week of an incident occurring. Often times, the immediate emotional reaction is we have is to change the law, but I think we have to reflect and look at this thing."
The state already has an assault weapons ban. But Scott C. Medeiros, the gunman who took his own life in the Foxy Lady shootings, had a Class A license that allowed him to purchase and carry the AR-15, according to police in Freetown, where he lived.
New Bedford police, carrying only their sidearms and a single-service rifle, were badly outgunned when Medeiros opened fire on them outside the Foxy Lady, wounding two officers and riddling cruisers with bullet holes.
Sportsmen quickly objected to the mayor's proposed ban.
Quinn urged a measured approach.
"I know the mayor is working hard to try to solve some of these problems."
Quinn said. "This is not a simple issue of the AR-15 ought to be banned from use. It's a lot more complicated than that."
Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral, D-New Bedford, said he was in touch with the mayor. Cabral was working on a wide-ranging gun bill for next session, but one that focused especially on the use of guns in the commission of a crime.
"I'm a supporter of the 2nd Amendment," Cabral said. "I think people have a right to bear arms, but having said that, I think it is appropriate for us to look at certain types of weapons, and some of them are not appropriate to be in the hands of certain individuals."
Cabral said it was too early to predict whether legislation would pass in the 2007-2008 session, which begins Jan. 3.
The Public Safety Committee, which passed an omnibus anti-gang bill this year, is looking at gun safety legislation next session. The committee has invited participation from Lang and other community leaders from across the state.
"There's no guarantee that anything is going to pass the first or second time around, but it's important to put the issue on the table for discussion," Cabral said.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Mark C.W. Montigny, D-New Bedford, said he was also working with the mayor and researching the issue.
Sen. Jarrett Barrios, D-Cambridge, who co-chairs the Public Safety Committee, is interested in what Lang is proposing, though some of it may already be covered by state law, said Barrios' spokesman, Michael Bloom.
Bloom said the Legislature may need clarification on the state's current assault weapons ban from the state Attorney General's Office.
"Our whole goal is trying to get these guns off the streets." Bloom said. "(Barrios) supports where the mayor is going."
Yesterday a local newspaper writer Marc Folco and a few other gun rights advocates were meeting with the mayor here in New Bedford. Marc Folco has voiced opposition to the mayor's recent call for more strict laws and a military style weapons ban.
Heres the latest from today's paper:
Lang's proposal followed strip club attack
By DAVID KIBBE, Standard-Times staff writer
BOSTON — State legislators had a cautious reaction to New Bedford Mayor Scott W. Lang's call this week for a statewide ban on the sale of military-style weapons like the AR-15 used in last week's fatal shootings of two employees at the Foxy Lady in New Bedford.
Earlier this week, Lang called it a "killing tool. ... It's a weapon that's used to destroy an opposition army. We don't need a battlefield in the middle of our city."
Rep. John F. Quinn, a Dartmouth Democrat whose district includes part of the city, said he wanted to take more time to study the issue.
"I'm certainly open to reviewing any type of legislation, but at the outset, we've got some of the toughest gun laws in the country on the books now," Quinn said. "A rule of thumb I follow, I never file any bills within one week of an incident occurring. Often times, the immediate emotional reaction is we have is to change the law, but I think we have to reflect and look at this thing."
The state already has an assault weapons ban. But Scott C. Medeiros, the gunman who took his own life in the Foxy Lady shootings, had a Class A license that allowed him to purchase and carry the AR-15, according to police in Freetown, where he lived.
New Bedford police, carrying only their sidearms and a single-service rifle, were badly outgunned when Medeiros opened fire on them outside the Foxy Lady, wounding two officers and riddling cruisers with bullet holes.
Sportsmen quickly objected to the mayor's proposed ban.
Quinn urged a measured approach.
"I know the mayor is working hard to try to solve some of these problems."
Quinn said. "This is not a simple issue of the AR-15 ought to be banned from use. It's a lot more complicated than that."
Rep. Antonio F.D. Cabral, D-New Bedford, said he was in touch with the mayor. Cabral was working on a wide-ranging gun bill for next session, but one that focused especially on the use of guns in the commission of a crime.
"I'm a supporter of the 2nd Amendment," Cabral said. "I think people have a right to bear arms, but having said that, I think it is appropriate for us to look at certain types of weapons, and some of them are not appropriate to be in the hands of certain individuals."
Cabral said it was too early to predict whether legislation would pass in the 2007-2008 session, which begins Jan. 3.
The Public Safety Committee, which passed an omnibus anti-gang bill this year, is looking at gun safety legislation next session. The committee has invited participation from Lang and other community leaders from across the state.
"There's no guarantee that anything is going to pass the first or second time around, but it's important to put the issue on the table for discussion," Cabral said.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Mark C.W. Montigny, D-New Bedford, said he was also working with the mayor and researching the issue.
Sen. Jarrett Barrios, D-Cambridge, who co-chairs the Public Safety Committee, is interested in what Lang is proposing, though some of it may already be covered by state law, said Barrios' spokesman, Michael Bloom.
Bloom said the Legislature may need clarification on the state's current assault weapons ban from the state Attorney General's Office.
"Our whole goal is trying to get these guns off the streets." Bloom said. "(Barrios) supports where the mayor is going."
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
No, he's NOT a supporter of the Second Amendment; he's a supporter of duck hunting... by his own words.
Exactly! How does he propose to keeps certain weapons out of the hands of certain individuals? The answer is, he can't, and therefore by default supports an AWB, despite his wordage.
Oh man Derek- you are starting to depress me.
I OFTEN wonder what is happening in MA. I can't understand what appears to be a larger and larger group of people that have widely differing views than I. Gun issues is certainly one, but there are MANY issues we have here. We now have ELECTED a governor (by a large margin) that wants more rights for ILLEGALS and wants others to bear the burden. There are so many things wrong and so many things that are ass backwards in this state.
We have socialists that want to punish people that work their asses off to get ahead financially while at the same time they want more money thown at social programs that don't often work and no one is accountable for results. Gun control doesn't work and they (the majority in this state) just don't want to blame the failed social system for the problems we have. It's clear where the violent crimes with/without guns come from in this and other states- where the communities don't have decent values, where there is this attitude that moms/dads have no accountability for actually raising their kids- yet the government and money is supposed to work. God forbid (no pun intended) that we have God mentioned anywhere including on the greenbacks! Yeah- focusing on destroying all religious symbols in this country is sure to fix things quickly. To me this state is losing our basic values... I can't understand how more can't see this happening. Gun violence is a result of a failed society... guns don't cause society to fail. I just don't get it either Derek.
Last edited:
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
God I hate when people use that phrase!
They are NOT "military-style" weapons! If they were truly "military-style" weapons they would be capable of full-auto firing.
They are semi-automatic versions, that's all.
The only differences between an AR-15 and the old Rem 742 I used to hunt with are mag size, caliber and styling. Pull the trigger and it fires, pull it again and it fires again.
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
Ummmm what? Hey Jon, what type of rifle is in your patrol car?
Ummm WRONG! Folks still own them in CA. It's not a total ban, just on new guns coming into the state!
Like he couldn't have accomplished this with say a Ruger Mini 14?
I bet you do, you socialist asshat!
Here we go... It was only a matter of time before they started to blame NH, ME, and VT for MA shortcomings!
Imagine that, a Chief of police who's IGNORANT OF THE LAW!
And the basic design of Brent was supposed to replicate a man, in either case they are missing VITAL components that make it so!
Great, just what we need, more levels of asinine complications!
Stop side-stepping what you want jackass... You want total "civilian" disarmament! Tell you what, how bout YOU bring your sorry ass and take em!
Colt Governmet.
I never leave without it![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
So theoretically, you would be equally matched with firepower from an AR, or rather, if he only had an AR, and you had your Colt AND your side arm, technically you would have HIM out-gunned!
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
I think both sides try to avoid taking the 2nd head-on like the plague in fear of a definitive verdict.
I think you may be right on that - however I also think that may be part of the problem. We on the pro 2nd amendment side keep avoiding the showdown- and what is happening to us is like death by a thousand papercuts. The antis avoid the fight because they think they can wear us down in the end and achieve their goals without meeting us head-on.
We have history, morality, the Constitution, and common sense all on our side. Why do we keep backing away from the fight?
Yeah, but what has that gotten us? (as 2nd amendment supporters). As it stands right now the 2nd isn't doing us any good. The government essentially ignores it. The antis are having their way because essentially the 2nd amendment doesn't do anything functional. When's the last time you heard a judge rejecting or dismissing a case on 2nd amendment grounds? Never heard of it. Name one time where a legislator was quaking in their boots over the constitutional legality of a gun law they were about to pass. Maybe once, maybe in 1934 (hence the "taxation" dodge instead of an outright ban) but I'm thinking the NRA is more responsible for that maneuver than anything else. (they wanted to create federal law framework on machineguns as a blockade to states creating more restrictive and spastic laws, the idea being that if the feds regulated them then the state legislatures would see no reasons at all to make extra laws. (Obviously that didn't pan out so well. )
That being said, being "afraid" of the verdict is a paper tiger of sorts. It's a non threat... we're already starting on the shit end of the stick, not the other way around There isn't anything to lose (wrt the 2nd) that we haven't already lost. If SCOTUS decides "the 2nd amendment does NOT guarantee an individual right." at the end of the day that won't mean a damn thing. It might put a feather in the cap of the antis, but it won't enable them to pass any more or less laws than they already have. The only thing thats ever stopped the antis is by stacking votes against them politically. It's been that way for the past few decades. The constitution has -NEVER- stopped an anti. If we want to use it to defend us, we must enable it to do so by forcing the government to recognize it. (If you think about it hard enough, as of now, the government really doesn't at all. ). And we can't accomplish that task with the NRA acting like a bunch of pussies every time a good challenge comes up. (FWIW I think Parker vs DC is an excellent case, and the NRA's willingness to try to not make it a 2nd amendment case is rather appalling. ).
One might say the laws are valid and mostly not unconstitional because there is precedent saying that "reasonable regulation" of constitutional rights is allowed, eg, like yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Problem is gun owners are dealing with laws that hardly constitute any form of reasonable regulation. Something is clearly wrong when numerous laws exist which are nonviolent offenses which are felonies. "So and so has a flash hider on his rifle = FELONY!" is just so wrong on so many different levels I don't know where to start.
-Mike
Last edited:
I think you're wrong on this one, Mike. Once SCOTUS says that 2nd amendment does NOT apply to individuals, the shit will hit the fan. This will open the door to restriction on carry and possession of ALL types of firearms. This can lead to only one thing: confiscation and the end of legal firearm ownership. Not a good thing.
I was motivated to leave Illinois by the most restrictive state and city gun laws this side of Hawaii. I thought Maine was a fairly safe choice, but see this infection spreading. Especially with this latest batch of legislators out of southern ME.
Hell. Time to bale again. Maybe someplace "Blue dog". Gulfport MS? Charleston SC? Pascagoula MS?
You don't get it- we're already facing down the barrel of that problem!
Washington DC alone is a prime example of this- we have a city in which gun ownership
is essnetially banned. If that isn't ignoring the 2nd amendment, then I don't know what is.
If we had a 2nd amendment that wasn't impotent, officials WOULD NOT have been able to
justify the confiscation of firearms during the Katrina disaster, either.
Again, show me where someone was able to use the 2nd amendment to
strike down a gun law or use it as a legal defense. It hasn't happened. If
we cannot use it to do those things, then that means it's functionally impotent.
Show me where any politico modified or altered anti gun legislation because of
possible 2nd amendment repercussions. They haven't- not in recent
history. Why? Because practically speaking, as it stands, on the ground,
right now, by the letter of the law, the 2nd amendment is legally
meaningless. If we want to be able to use it to defend our rights,
we must create a scenario where a court supports or reinforces the notion
that it is still meaningful or legitimate.
-Mike
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
Without a SCOTUS ruling both sides have leverage. If this was taken head on by either side, SCOTUS would have to rule on an obsolute position. Quite frankly, history, morality and the Constitution have little to do with it.
Let's take Roe v. Wade as an example. SCOTUS ruled that it was okay to murder unborn children, (fact in a nutshell to us God fearing Christians, and others of faith). Yet, the same liberals scoth at imposing capital punishment on convicted murderes, rapists, and child molesters. We, who believe this murder is against God's Divine doctrine, have found it very difficult to overturn this crime against humanity. So much for history, MORALITY and the Constitution.
So, let's say that the 2nd comes up before SCOTUS as an absolute definition on the true spirit of the meaning and SCOTUS rules that the 2nd does not apply to the individual. That means you and I, and every other citizen (we the people) must now give up all of our firearms (like the UK and Australia).
What means would we have to ever over rule that decision? The anti's know that if this was to ever come "to a head" and SCOTUS ruled that it was an absolute God given right (as it was meant to be in the beginning) they would never again have a leg to stand on.
And, since when did common sense ever come into play in our laws since the Declaration of Independance, the Bill of Rights, and the Ten Commandments?
UK and Austrailia lost all their guns because-
-the sheeple mindset of their owners enabled confiscation (too many of them
copped for the buyout, at least in the AU, and in GB there wasnt enough
gun owners for anyone to care).
-politically speaking the gun owners are far "outgunned" in those countries...
they're literally a minority of a minority. in AU or GB, there's no such
thing as losing an election, even a regional one, because of an incorrect
gun control stance. Not so in some parts of the US. (although that is
slowly starting to erode in some parts. )
Food for thought: If we had the same EU demographics in the US wrt guns, the antis
could simply repeal the 2nd amendment, making it irrelevant anyways, regardless
of the way SCOTUS rules... which would make the argument moot, legally speaking. It doesn't
matter at that point if its an individual right, they can just "delete" it from the constitution with 2/3rds
vote. (not going to happen anytime soon, but maybe in our lifetimes.)
Right now the courts have essentially supported all existing (and future)
gun control measures because they've not struck down a single one
of them, not on the federal level, or the state level, by virtue of the
2nd amendment. In a few cases they've been killed off because of
procedural violations, but not because of constitutionality. (EG, in San
Francisco, the handgun ban failed because CA has state level preemption
which basically trumps any ordinance which SF comes up with, so as soon
as it was signed the court crushed it on that. )
The fact that I have to make sworn statements under penalty of perjury
to the government on a 4473 form in order to acquire firearms (at least under
most circumstances) is pretty much prime evidence that the
government can (and does) do whatever the politicians let them get away
with. It's also prime evidence that the government widely considers that
gun ownership is a privledge and not a right. (note, I mean legally speaking,
in the face of the law, not what we believe it should be, which is an
unalienable right) Whens the last time you had to get permission from the
government before you had to exercise any of your other constitutional rights?
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
It's painfully obvious that most of the politicans and most of the courts
act as though the 2nd amendment doesn't exist. (or at least, they act as
though it does not apply to individuals) If we don't start smacking
them up in court, they'll keep getting away with it. Other rights are also
abused, but none as much as the 2nd. If we want to use the 2nd we
need to bring the fight to the enemy -now- before we lose support due to
attrition in the next generation or so. Otherwise the antis will get away
with the pet trick known as- "If you keep telling a lie long enough, it will
eventually become the truth." And that's what they're getting away with
WRT the 2nd.
-Mike
Last edited:
Mass-diver
NES Member
So, depressing.......I don't think there is much hope in MA. I would guess that a majority of people in this state would vote yes to banning all handguns. While the 2nd ammendment would prevent that from happening, the backdoor bans have worked really well. How about the fact that we can't buy ammo online or buy a new Glock? Pretty soon we'll see ammo taxes and that mandatory insurance law (per firearm).
The only thing we really do is hold MA up as an example of what democrates are all about and make them pay nationally.
This banning of AR is just another kick in the pants. On personal level, I really, really want an AR, but I don't know if I'll beat the ban
The only thing we really do is hold MA up as an example of what democrates are all about and make them pay nationally.
This banning of AR is just another kick in the pants. On personal level, I really, really want an AR, but I don't know if I'll beat the ban
M-D,
- 2nd Amendment is IRRELEVANT IN MA! MA courts have ruled that it is NOT an individual right, so they can do as they want to us until or unless the Supremes rule differently (not likely any time soon). [Also think DC, Cook County IL, etc. for other examples.]
- 1976 saw a vote to ban all handguns. It failed at the ballot box, but I wouldn't take bets today.
- Bills to require huge insurance PER GUN have been filed for at least 20 years. Ammo taxes are also filed on a regular basis. GOAL guards the fence for us, and we need to be vigilant, but not defeatist.
- 2nd Amendment is IRRELEVANT IN MA! MA courts have ruled that it is NOT an individual right, so they can do as they want to us until or unless the Supremes rule differently (not likely any time soon). [Also think DC, Cook County IL, etc. for other examples.]
- 1976 saw a vote to ban all handguns. It failed at the ballot box, but I wouldn't take bets today.
- Bills to require huge insurance PER GUN have been filed for at least 20 years. Ammo taxes are also filed on a regular basis. GOAL guards the fence for us, and we need to be vigilant, but not defeatist.
