Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo

[Permanent Waves]

yeah, so having internet/pin is a requirement to sell a gun, but showing a ****ing ID at the polling station is too much of a burden.

Totally nailed that Boris.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There is some good in this bill - specifically the wording regarding what "suitability" should be based on, and the lack of delegation of what those standards are to unelected apparatachiks. The fact that GOAL was able to have so many corrections made is a testament to that org's effectiveness (particularly removing the 1 year misdemeanor prohibition). I have some concerns, but on the whole, GOAL hit a home run relative to what could have happened.

One thing I find curious is that if a subject has a 209A expire, or vacated, the allegation that accompanied the original 209A application (but not any evidence refuting the allegation) becomes part of their NICS record:

a statement specifying and describing the defendant’s alleged conduct and relationship to the plaintiff and an explanation that the order is no longer current or valid, to the department of criminal justice information services who shall transmit the report, pursuant to paragraph (h) of section 167A of chapter 6, to the attorney general to be included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

 

[pdm]

but it disenfranchises the elderly, poor, and minorities! And wtf do you think all the gun laws do???

All part of the plan. Keeps 'em afraid and voting.

 

[jasons]

Come on dude the government would NEVER abuse power or keep people from owning guns. This was a VICTORY!

I certainly wouldn't call it a victory but at least we didn't get knocked out in the first round like usual, and we got a few punches in.

 

[Admin]

I certainly wouldn't call it a victory but at least we didn't get knocked out in the first round like usual, and we got a few punches in.

Any compromise on the birth right of self defense is a defeat. I don't understand how people can't grasp it.

 

[Quiet]

Come on dude the government would NEVER abuse power or keep people from owning guns. This was a VICTORY!

How would you have previously defined what our "suitability" "non-standard standard" was?

 

[PaulD]

I don't know what's worse, slowly boiling to death or getting boiling water poured over us, I think that latter may be better ultimately.

I don't believe in these "compromises" and supposedly "pro-2a" politicians slipping roosters in voter's butts.

I'd be happy to donate to your campaign.

 

[Admin]

How would you have previously defined what our "suitability" "non-standard standard" was?

THERE SHOULDN'T BE SUITABILITY. SHALL ISSUE OR GTFO. IS THAT TOO HARD TO COMPREHEND? YOU CAN EITHER OWN A FIREARM AND CARRY IT OR YOU CAN'T.

 

[Boris]

Ok, here is a situation:

You get cornered in a dark alley by a gang of 50 who want to gang rape you ... then only few people rape you ... victory???


I am sick and tired of these pleasantries and compromises with "warmint hunters" and FUDS. Do this shit already, full on, full on moonbat. One thing that came out of CT was at least some civil disobedience. Our rights are slipping away inch by inch and yet it's all civil and somehow legal. ****ing bullshit.

 

[Quiet]

THERE SHOULDN'T BE SUITABILITY. SHALL ISSUE OR GTFO. IS THAT TOO HARD TO COMPREHEND? YOU CAN EITHER OWN A FIREARM AND CARRY IT OR YOU CAN'T.

It's really hard to fight a ghost. Really, really hard.

 

[OfficerObie59]

This new bill is a mixed bag. Not a full-on fisting, but a mere prostate tickle.

While there may be some reason to smile, we're still taking it in the ass.

 

[Quiet]

Ok, here is a situation:

You get cornered in a dark alley by a gang of 50 who want to gang rape you ... then only few people rape you ... victory???

If it leaves you with your guns to fight another day, and maybe you got a reacharound and a cigarette in the deal. ;-)

 

[FSTC]

Any compromise on the birth right of self defense is a defeat. I don't understand how people can't grasp it.

Some people grasp it.
But most are just trying to rationalize it.

Like the wedding night of a mail order bride, sure it's probably gonna end with rape, but it's okay cuz' she's married to him..

 

[milktree]

THERE SHOULDN'T BE SUITABILITY. SHALL ISSUE OR GTFO. IS THAT TOO HARD TO COMPREHEND? YOU CAN EITHER OWN A FIREARM AND CARRY IT OR YOU CAN'T.

Even if the statutory requirements were onerous, they're statutory, so everyone knows what they are and therefore they're open to discussion.

Nobody writes down, "I only give permits to my friends", or "black people do more crimes", even restrictive shall-issue would be better than what we have now.

 

[xero2099]

if anything we can be happy we made enough noise for the original bill to be changed we just need to build off that

 

[LoginName]

I'm not sure how that stuff works, but if someone could go federal that would probably be a good thing.

I would guess that thing we'd need to be careful of (not that we can really do anything about it) is having bad cases go to review and then getting stuck with bad case law.

And therein lies the problem.

DC v. Heller (originally Parker v. DC), started off with 6 closely vetted and scrutinized individuals with a 'clean as a

whistle' record, and in the end, only Dick Heller was found to have any standing or grievance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Lower_court_background

And still we only won by a 5-4 margin

The way the suitability/CLEO discretion stands as defined in this bill.... it's going to be a tough situation finding anyone

with a legitimate gripe.

 

[cekim]

I certainly wouldn't call it a victory but at least we didn't get knocked out in the first round like usual, and we got a few punches in.

We did better than hold ground - by a long shot - if you take the time to read the particulars of the bill. That this came out of what started is nothing short of a miracle. I still have serious problems with treatment of gun owners in this state, but they are the same issues we had before. Remember this was not a bill to fix MA gun laws - it was originally a vast sea of bills all designed to criminalize all gun ownership.

Now we need to stop waiting to get beat up and start winning hearts and minds so that the next time the shills come calling they can't even get a feel good bill through committee.

Moreover, we need to ensure they won't be able to stop the next bill that corrects some of the injustice in this state without their phones and email boxes straining and the dollar signs of having to back-pedal and make excuses in the next election for their bigotry against gun owners spinning in their eyes (the cost of opposing us).

People, myself included want a storybook victory with a vanquished enemy and good triumphing over evil in 90 minutes. That's not how it works no matter what you do. So, take this as a turning point. Learn the lessons of this engagement and lets push this state back into compliance with the Constitution, this nation's founding principles and justice itself.

- - - Updated - - -

The way the suitability/CLEO discretion stands as defined in this bill.... it's going to be a tough situation finding anyone with

a legitimate gripe.

Nothing new here and this bill does not make that worse. In fact it provides additional avenues for redress that did not exist before.

 

[gunclinger]

THERE SHOULDN'T BE SUITABILITY. SHALL ISSUE OR GTFO. IS THAT TOO HARD TO COMPREHEND? YOU CAN EITHER OWN A FIREARM AND CARRY IT OR YOU CAN'T.

I don't trust the new suitability wording, not at all...why wouldn't the state then just go full shall-issue?

So this strikes me as the state's technique of designing-in a way to "own" the police chiefs in some yet-to-be revealed way. I don't see a net positive for the general mission of RKBA in Mass unless may-issue FID gets removed. I know net positive wasn't the goal here (it was minimizing the negative, given the inevitability of some kind of bill). But I still see may-issue-all-gun-rights as the strongest argument for our side to use against the bill as we turn back to the Senate.

 

[cmcgraw2]

"Gun control bill advances in Massachusetts House following 111-37 vote"

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/07/gun_control_bill_moves_ahead_i.html

House Republicans appeared to be nearly unanimous in voting against the bill, with the notable exception of Grafton Republican George Peterson who was involved in negotiating changes to the legislation from an earlier version that had cleared the Public Safety Committee.

(It'll be interesting to see what Peterson' getting out of this.)

 

[cekim]

THERE SHOULDN'T BE SUITABILITY. SHALL ISSUE OR GTFO. IS THAT TOO HARD TO COMPREHEND? YOU CAN EITHER OWN A FIREARM AND CARRY IT OR YOU CAN'T.

Agreed, to do otherwise is a clear violation of due process. I am confident that this will eventually have to be fully understood or 2A will be the least of our worries as a nation.

 

[Admin]

"Gun control bill advances in Massachusetts House following 111-37 vote"

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/07/gun_control_bill_moves_ahead_i.html



(It'll be interesting to see what Peterson' getting out of this.)

Personal gain over liberty. The bill was going to pass regardless and he knew it, yet still voted for it. Yeah I can't wait to see what "gain" he gets for stomping on the Constitution.

 

[gunclinger]

Even if the statutory requirements were onerous, they're statutory, so everyone knows what they are and therefore they're open to discussion.

Nobody writes down, "I only give permits to my friends", or "black people do more crimes", even restrictive shall-issue would be better than what we have now.

And don't think this new bill would reduce/eliminate the issuance of restricted licenses.

 

[cekim]

"Gun control bill advances in Massachusetts House following 111-37 vote"

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/07/gun_control_bill_moves_ahead_i.html



(It'll be interesting to see what Peterson' getting out of this.)

Um, retirement? What are you suggesting?

 

[PaulD]

Um, retirement? What are you suggesting?

It's possible he threw himself on the grenade. That is, he could have struck a deal to make this only semi, instead of full, retard in exchange for a promise to vote for it. That's just a guess though.

 

[Admin]

It's possible he through himself on the grenade. That is, he could have struck a deal to make this only semi, instead of full, retard in exchange for a promise to vote for it. That's just a guess though.

The vote wasn't close, and besides that who votes against liberty?

 

[OfficerObie59]

The way the suitability/CLEO discretion stands as defined in this bill.... it's going to be a tough situation finding anyone with a legitimate gripe.

Is the suitability issue a step forward?

It seems that way. But we won't really know until the courts define the issue further. For example, are you a "risk to public safety" if you answered Question #10 incorrectly? What if you were charged with 131L violation after a gun you left unsecured was stolen from your home by a burglar? Are you a risk, or is the safety risk merely the burglar?

I predict it'll be years until the courts work out all the bugs. Certainly a few hours for the public to review it will leave a whole swarm. Shit, by the time I wrote my Rep about the failure to remove the unconstitutional alienage restrictions from sections 21 and 33, the bill had already passed.

 

[PaulD]

The vote wasn't close, and besides that who votes against liberty?

Like I said, just a guess. I would like to know wtf was running through his mind.

 

[Admin]

Shit, by the time I wrote my Rep about the failure to remove the unconstitutional alienage restrictions from sections 21 and 33, the bill had already passed.

But this was a victory for MA transparency...

 

[Len-2A Training]

yep. I remember being screamed at at the BRP years ago for shooting one.

At Braintree? Say it ain't so.....

Back in 1999 when I joined BR&P new members were told that shooting at human-shaped targets was forbidden and an arrestable offense. I sent an Email to the club president (lawyer) after the new member orientation and asked him to correct that mis-information. He did so by the following day. Our CRO is the club FFL and sells targets to new members. Guess what targets my Wife and I use (and bought at BR&P) there? [They are the reduced B-27s, suitable for all the ranges.] I've never heard that this is an issue since that date in 1999. If anyone gets yelled at tell them to talk with the CRO or report them to the CRO directly yourself.

Remember if you do move to NH, you can't sit back and relax. Freedom is a constant never ending battle.

Amen. Smarter men than us stated "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance!"

 

[OfficerObie59]

And don't think this new bill would reduce/eliminate the issuance of restricted licenses.

No, but it does allow you to appeal your restrictions to a court, something you couldn't previously do. The problem is there has to be "no reasonable grounds" for the restriction, which seems to me like burden shifting to the plaintiff. See Section 36.