nothing in MA politics is ever done quickly
-
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 June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Gun Violence report in the hands of DeLeo
- Thread starter Satcom
- Start date
- Status
nothing in MA politics is ever done quickly
Horrible
NES Member
This report is what the Pols will fall back on as the reason to push this legislation now.
+1 Just greasing the wheels
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
Chapter 180 was pretty fast. How quickly we forget.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
I was still living the dream in free Arizona back then so I wasn't involved, but the resident NES graybeards have discussed it here a few times: http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...gislative-history-of-Acts-of-1998-Chapter-180
How about that they want you to sign an affidavit saying all guns registered in your name you still own. I know lots of folks who have traded guns or consigned them through Ma dealers. How many people have done FA10's after they traded a gun into a dealer? Probably not many.
I don't think Naughton or whoever will use this report for anything, frankly. It's pretty much trash. I'm still pretty concerned about the bill, but not for the "expected" reasons, I think it is going to contain a bunch of crap in it that hasn't been "played" before. Crap that will sell with "fudds" or make them not care. That's what will make it dangerous.
-Mike
YUCK.
The Winds of Shit are coming. Get ready.
The Winds of Shit are coming. Get ready.
I've seen Terminator, The Corruptor, and A Better Tomorrow. I know everything I need to know about guns.
Garys
NES Member
Watching the news coverage of Alexander Bradley being shot yet again, the Hartford, CT detective speaking says that the gun that Bradley used to shoot up the bar was stolen from a FFL in Massachusetts. In fact, it was on of over 100 guns stolen in that B&E. Puts a dent in that "guns come from NH" story line. Which is a BS argument anyway as any sale of a handgun from someone in NH to a MA resident is prohibited by federal law. Once again, we can't expect Eric Holder's DOJ to prosecute that particular crime because it might lead to questions about Fast and Furious.
It's all theater, designed to convince the sheep that government is "doing something" about gun violence when it is doing nothing but making it harder for people who don't commit crimes to legally own guns and exercise their Second Amendment Rights.
I also think that some of the proposed changes are meant to forestall legal challenges to the current laws based on Heller and McDonald, as well as other decisions that might be coming out of SCOTUS.
It's all theater, designed to convince the sheep that government is "doing something" about gun violence when it is doing nothing but making it harder for people who don't commit crimes to legally own guns and exercise their Second Amendment Rights.
I also think that some of the proposed changes are meant to forestall legal challenges to the current laws based on Heller and McDonald, as well as other decisions that might be coming out of SCOTUS.
ABT Pt. 1 & 2 are awesome. I love the scene where Chow Yun-Fat slides down the stairs on his back while dumping two mags into a baddie.
Your analysis might be valid unless you remember that this is MASSACHUSETTS.
NH moonbats are pushing HB1589 as a universal background check bill which outlaws FTF transactions, and here you are hoping that MA will be wiser. Denial is rather strong in you today.
And I am truly sorry that the situation is so bad in MA, I am trying to help whenever possible... just don't see much point in false hope. Looking forward to being proven wrong... but my personal analysis is that if any "background check" legislation is passed by the MA legislature, it will be the end of legal FTF transactions in MA.
People who wrote it do not understand what they are talking about? The committee gave DeLeo the report DeLeo asked for... unless you're buying the whole "independent committee" line. You can bet that the speaker will reluctantly tighten the screws on MA citizens a tad more... because the independent study committee made such a strong case.
No MA legislator truly understands MA firearm laws - never stopped them from passing more legislation.
Do let me know if I can help somehow... but in the meantime, prepare for another dose of some bitter medicine.
Come the end of this month, he'll have other things to worry about. Like his freedom. The first gun murder from a criminal that happens after any bill passes, I'm calling my reps, and asking why they restricted my right even more, and still can't guarantee safety-after they PROMISED
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
xero2099
NES Member
indeed it may suck but thankfully they can't backdoor this stuff
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
That's exactly what I was getting at. Certain types of people will read the report and say "it's not that bad, I don't have to worry" and when they have their eye off the ball we'll get slammed with actual legislation that's much worse. Or alternatively people will get all spun up about the report (I bet the post count even here will go north of 500 posts) and miss the actual legislation, with the same effect.
My point in either case: Don't get caught up in this smoke screen. It's just a feint to set us (all of us, fudds included) for the haymaker.
"It also said Massachusetts should require anyone wanting to purchase a hunting rifle or a shotgun to pass those standards of suitability. That could allow local police chiefs to deny gun purchases to people who have been arrested, but not convicted, of a crime."
suggesting someone who has not been convicted of anything, be treated as such, sounds pretty defamatory. "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" If an official report seriously suggests someone not found guilty be treated as someone who has been, then I seriously hope someone considers filing a defamation lawsuit against those who would publish such defamatory crap.
suggesting someone who has not been convicted of anything, be treated as such, sounds pretty defamatory. "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" If an official report seriously suggests someone not found guilty be treated as someone who has been, then I seriously hope someone considers filing a defamation lawsuit against those who would publish such defamatory crap.
Does Massachusetts have a mechanism for getting arrest records expunged?
No, Barred by SJC rulling in 2009 I believe.
After having read the report (which ultimately doesn't matter) I am not as worried as I had been. That said, I'll wait to see the bill.
The bad:
1. Making FIDs subject to discretion (may actually help us on the litigation front in the long term)
2. Signature of an affidavit as to what guns you own upon licence renewel
The promising:
1. No mention of one-gun-a-month
2. Linksy is pretty much a clown (no range storage)
3. No further mag restrictions
4. No mention of harsher AWB
5. No license expiration as long as renewal is requested
The who the **** knows:
1. Combining/streamlining of EOPS/AG list
2. "universal background checks"
3. More clear cut guidelines for discretion
The irrelevant:
1. Elimination of LTC-B
2. School mental health improvements
3. Community policing
It'll be interesting to see the bill, but this could have been way worse... again this means shit, but if these are the recommendations, I'm interested to see the bill.
Mike
The bad:
1. Making FIDs subject to discretion (may actually help us on the litigation front in the long term)
2. Signature of an affidavit as to what guns you own upon licence renewel
The promising:
1. No mention of one-gun-a-month
2. Linksy is pretty much a clown (no range storage)
3. No further mag restrictions
4. No mention of harsher AWB
5. No license expiration as long as renewal is requested
The who the **** knows:
1. Combining/streamlining of EOPS/AG list
2. "universal background checks"
3. More clear cut guidelines for discretion
The irrelevant:
1. Elimination of LTC-B
2. School mental health improvements
3. Community policing
It'll be interesting to see the bill, but this could have been way worse... again this means shit, but if these are the recommendations, I'm interested to see the bill.
Mike
Glad to see that a report suggesting legal gun owners in MA gain nothing and lose more rights has you interested in seeing the bill... cause after all, it could have been even worse. Your post gives me the eerie feeling that comes when you realize that in the mind of many MA citizens it's been pretty much established that freedom is going away... should be fight over the pace of the freedom loss or should we be fighting to reverse the trend and gain our freedoms back?
What does that have to do with anything? Nothing. Not related. An anti gunner brought up a bill in a relatively pro gun state.... you don't say?
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Seriously? This happens like every year in NH. (although normally, a bill like that gets ITLed a lot faster) How long have you lived there? I'm not denying anything. I am being realistic though. Realistically this report has little or nothing to do with the bill that they are going to try to float. It's way too stupid for that.
-Mike
What does that have to do with anything? Nothing. Not related. An anti gunner brought up a bill in a relatively pro gun state.... you don't say?
I'm not denying anything. I am being realistic though. Realistically this report has little or nothing to do with the bill that they are going to try to float. It's way too stupid for that.
-Mike
You are trying to ignore my point, so let me spell it out for you: if the crazy legislators in NH are pushing for an end to FTF transactions (knowing it cannot pass, but still), I find it strange that you feel that MA will somehow realize that all LTC holders already passed background checks and thus further background checks are pointless. You should also know that what "universal background checks" is all about is to force all gun purchases to happen at the FFL, where the gov can regulate them to no end without violating YOUR rights (according to MA courts, at least). Eliminating legal FTF transactions would get MA closer to their CA-like dream of only allowing you a rusty pre-WWII pistol to defend yourself.
I'll circle back to this thread once the legislation passes... just so we can establish which of us is being realistic. The proof is in the pudding... no way to settle this particular argument until then.
They needed an esteemed group of smart people say that we need more gun laws and they got it.
Affadavit thing is the most scary - this is not about cleaning up records, it's about registration.
Affadavit thing is the most scary - this is not about cleaning up records, it's about registration.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 56,614
- Likes
- 20,004
If they want Interstate too, MIRCS doesn't cover it and isn't tied into it. That would require NICS and the way the Brady Law is written, only FFLs have access to do a NICS check. Thus, a really comprehensive check would have to go thru an FFL's books and unless they changed (more like shit-canned) C. 140 S. 123, all non-List guns die in MA! Yes, I think this is a hoped-for expectation by the committee (limits number of guns drastically).
A bill was filed, there was no agreement on it and so they did a hand-picked conference committee that worked on it behind closed doors. The result (C. 180) was rammed thru to a vote by the House & Senate with NO DEBATE ALLOWED (I watched the vote on Ch. 44) and my State Rep told me that ALL of them were threatened with loss of chairmanships (adds $$ to paycheck), office space and staff if they voted NO. He voted NO and ended up in the basement (an unlit corridor, not kidding either) of the State House. Hardly any legistraitor had time to actually read it (it was more than twice as long as the original bill) before voting on it.
it's not that he thinks any new legislation will be passed or not, just that this "study" means little to nothing in regards to it
they dont go hand in hand
- - - Updated - - -
this is what kills me about NY too, how can anyone support politicians who vote on something without reading it, let alone understanding it.
regardless how you feel about the actual bills, that behavior should be unacceptable for all taxpayers.
but people don't care
- - - Updated - - -
they already have registration but its a messy one, so it technically really would be just cleaning up records
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 56,614
- Likes
- 20,004
Regrettably I think you are wrong Mike. This report sets the stage for Deleo's bill which WILL get to the floor, he'll see to that even if he has to threaten everyone (see my post above about how C. 180 went down in 1998).
Separately, Naughton will write his bill. Where that goes depends on if it floats Deleo's boat or not.
but Deleo's bill would get to the floor regardless of this study don't you think?
Ya ya ya ya....
The only thing we stand to gain legislatively in MA are little things like the license non-expiration, or MAYBE the cleaning up of the EOPS/AG list, and potentially minorly beneficial "guidelines" on who may be restricted.
If you think anything else will come without litigation, you're high. They will never overturn the mag ban or "assault weapons" ban, they will never have shall issue, and they will never get rid of registration without a court order saying they must.
So yes, I'm happy that it is looking like I can probably still bring my 30 round mags to the range, and carry my 12 round mags, without going to jail if I get caught a la CT or NY. Hopefully the "may issue" FIDs force some litigation requiring "shall issue" in the future. Though I think more likely we will see a district or SCOTUS case before that affirming CC is a right and making them un**** their "discretion" based system to the point of "shall issue."
But yes, MA is lost as far as legislation in our favor goes. Holding the line until litigation comes down the pipe is the best we can hope for IMO.
Mike
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 56,614
- Likes
- 20,004
Absolutely. What the Senate President or Speaker of the House want to get to the floor gets to the floor for debate and a vote. Conversely, what they do NOT want to get to the floor never gets to the floor! [This works the same in other states and in DC too.]
- Status
Similar threads
