House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)

[30Mauser]

LEOs are exempt all the time. They do not have to be on duty per MGL.

Thanks Len. I caught that after I pulled up the cite but was too lazy to edit.

 

[NickyBangBang]

Things in this state most likely wont change in large moves. It will be small moves to get to the bigger ones.
I'd like to see:
the end of the ag restrictions. This is already being worked on
end of mag restrictions. This could be postioned as class a is already for "large capacity" so this restriction should be removed.
Then assault weapon ban

^This
small changes so that the sheep don't get scared.

 

[cekim]

^This
small changes so that the sheep don't get scared.

There are a lot of squishy people who will help us if they don't have to come out and wave our flag in the process.

The culture of this state is profoundly dysfunctional WRT to liberty, personal responsibility and gun ownership as an extension of that. Perhaps the single most important thing we have to do is get more gun owners and convince those we have already to stop hiding and hoping "they" will go away.

To that end. Legislatively - baby steps. Litigation - rip them apart strategically - but it won't be leaps forward unless it comes from outside MA. Culturally, everywhere, always, with everyone - the culture must change so that people understand the realities of self-defense and gun ownership rather than the TV/Hollywood/Progressive story they've been sold.

 

[terraformer]

Things in this state most likely wont change in large moves. It will be small moves to get to the bigger ones.
I'd like to see:
the end of the ag restrictions. This is already being worked on
end of mag restrictions. This could be postioned as class a is already for "large capacity" so this restriction should be removed.
Then assault weapon ban

The AWB is more likely to fall before the mag limits. There is little rational basis for the AWB.

 

[cekim]

The AWB is more likely to fall before the mag limits. There is little rational basis for the AWB.

The "rational basis" for magazines is false too, but agreed, it will take more explanation to a clueless judge to explain and even more to an anti judge.

 

[SpaceCritter]

The "rational basis" for magazines is false too, but agreed, it will take more explanation to a clueless judge to explain and even more to an anti judge.

Same with reloading. A local (Connecticut) self-defense attorney I know pointed out that using a reload in a self-defense situation, at least here in the less-than-free states, is likely to result in a judge, wide-eyed, looking at you and asking, "Wait, you MAKE YER OWN BULLITZ??!?"

 

[milktree]

The AWB is more likely to fall before the mag limits. There is little rational basis for the AWB.

Since mag limits are part of the AWB, what do you mean?

Are you saying that the restrictions on flash hiders and telescoping stocks and pistol grips et. al. could go away, while the 10 round limit for post '94 mags would stay in place?

 

[knfmn]

Same with reloading. A local (Connecticut) self-defense attorney I know pointed out that using a reload in a self-defense situation, at least here in the less-than-free states, is likely to result in a judge, wide-eyed, looking at you and asking, "Wait, you MAKE YER OWN BULLITZ??!?"

I always thought that was common knowledge. Never carry reloads, or use them in a home defense firearm, just because that's one more thing an over zealous DA can use to screw you over. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant, Mr. Knfmn, was so blood thirsty that he spent hours meticulously choosing the most lethal hollow point bullets and loading his own ammunition to make sure that he would have the best chance of killing Mr. Victim, a poor youth who was just turning his life around after his 15th conviction and pursuing a career in hip hop." Not for me, thanks! I just buy and load factory stuff. I save the reloads for the range.

 

[exo]

I always thought that was common knowledge. Never carry reloads, or use them in a home defense firearm, just because that's one more thing an over zealous DA can use to screw you over. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant, Mr. Knfmn, was so blood thirsty that he spent hours meticulously choosing the most lethal hollow point bullets and loading his own ammunition to make sure that he would have the best chance of killing Mr. Victim, a poor youth who was just turning his life around after his 15th conviction and pursuing a career in hip hop." Not for me, thanks! I just buy and load factory stuff. I save the reloads for the range.

Isn't that just an Ayoobism? Can anyone actually point to a court case in which it mattered?

 

[knfmn]

Isn't that just an Ayoobism? Can anyone actually point to a court case in which it mattered?

It's Sunday night....I'm not searching the Internet to find a court case. Do you really think that something which could be yet another liability in a shooting case is a good idea? I sure don't. It's worth the $1/rd to me to avoid ever having to worry about that aspect of it.

 

[terraformer]

Since mag limits are part of the AWB, what do you mean?

Are you saying that the restrictions on flash hiders and telescoping stocks and pistol grips et. al. could go away, while the 10 round limit for post '94 mags would stay in place?

Mag limits are not part of the AWB (more on this below). It's different.

That mag limits survive and AWB features do not survive is a possibility. It's a big fear on a lot of people's parts that it will be a compromise. That said, there is nothing, and I mean nothing, in Supreme Court decisions to suggest this will occur. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

That said, mag limits are related to the new push to criminalize "large capacity" firearms. That will be the antis downfall. Because they are basically saying any semi auto can be banned. Also, 10 rounds is highly arbitrary.

But elections matter. If a progun candidate is not elected to president in 2016, we are done for. And not just on this point. The whole thing comes crashing down.

 

[cekim]

But elections matter. If a progun candidate is not elected to president in 2016, we are done for. And not just on this point. The whole thing comes crashing down.

Well, geez, this means Romney can't run!

 

[DarthRevan]

But elections matter. If a progun candidate is not elected to president in 2016, we are done for. And not just on this point. The whole thing comes crashing down.

Can you be any more optimistic?

 

[terraformer]

Can you be any more optimistic?

Nope. The resistance to treating this as a right is very strong and we need more case law before it's fully protected.

 

[Squire]

That said, mag limits are related to the new push to criminalize "large capacity" firearms. That will be the antis downfall. Because they are basically saying any semi auto can be banned.

I think the antis are educating themselves about detachable magazines, though, in anticipation of FUDD backlash to 10-rd semiautos that effectively get reloaded one round at a time. In CT, the Sandy Hook "Grave Dancers Union" (side note, great Soul Asylum record from 1992) are pushing for this all-out ban, with a likely "compromise" being a method by which AR mags are not detachable "without tools" like the telescoping stocks. Oh, and mandatory registration, again.

And shouldn't Heller be enough to protect this? In the home, the right to self-defense can't be infringed. Limiting the ability to reload in a home invasion is severely infringing.

 

[terraformer]

I think the antis are educating themselves about detachable magazines, though, in anticipation of FUDD backlash to 10-rd semiautos that effectively get reloaded one round at a time. In CT, the Sandy Hook "Grave Dancers Union" (side note, great Soul Asylum record from 1992) are pushing for this all-out ban, with a likely "compromise" being a method by which AR mags are not detachable "without tools" like the telescoping stocks. Oh, and mandatory registration, again.

And shouldn't Heller be enough to protect this? In the home, the right to self-defense can't be infringed. Limiting the ability to reload in a home invasion is severely infringing.

Heller isn't some magic Talisman. It only says what judges are willing to agree it says. That's why putting up good cases with good plaintiffs is so important.

 

[Coyote33]

Since mag limits are part of the AWB, what do you mean?

I think we ought to just slip in language into some other bill to get rid of the limit. Put it in some farm or education bill. That's how THEY play the game.

I think the antis are educating themselves about detachable magazines, though, in anticipation of FUDD backlash to 10-rd semiautos that effectively get reloaded one round at a time. In CT, the Sandy Hook "Grave Dancers Union" (side note, great Soul Asylum record from 1992) are pushing for this all-out ban, with a likely "compromise" being a method by which AR mags are not detachable "without tools" like the telescoping stocks. Oh, and mandatory registration, again.

And shouldn't Heller be enough to protect this? In the home, the right to self-defense can't be infringed. Limiting the ability to reload in a home invasion is severely infringing.

Compromise? How about we let the ban on full automatic continue a little longer, if they give us 30 rounds, flash hiders, and silencers? Deal?

 

[Waher]

10 round detachable without tool magazines have been commonly available and in use since the 1880s. By law those guns (even with center-fire cartridges) aren't even considered firearms. A ban on detachable magazines as 'dangerous modern assault technology!11' would be akin to banning all phone technology back to the telegraph.

 

[crazymjb]

I think our best hopes lie in litigation not legislation.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

 

[Len-2A Training]

I think our best hopes lie in litigation not legislation.

Mike

Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

Absolutely agree.

 

[xcom]

But elections matter. If a progun candidate is not elected to president in 2016, we are done for. And not just on this point. The whole thing comes crashing down.

Very much so, the next prez will be appointing 2 or maybe 3 SCOTUS members. One is likely a push (Ginsberg) but the others are not good. That fundamental right can quickly turn over with out "living" Constitution (read, illusory check on government).

 

[Squire]

Compromise? How about we let the ban on full automatic continue a little longer, if they give us 30 rounds, flash hiders, and silencers? Deal?

I certainly am not advocating such a compromise, but CT is doubling down with Malloy's reelection.

 

[terraformer]

Very much so, the next prez will be appointing 2 or maybe 3 SCOTUS members. One is likely a push (Ginsberg) but the others are not good. That fundamental right can quickly turn over with out "living" Constitution (read, illusory check on government).

Well, keep in mind that the push (ginsburg) is not a push if she exits under a republican admin... Then one less of the others matter.

- - - Updated - - -

I certainly am not advocating such a compromise, but CT is doubling down with Malloy's reelection.

Malloy should have been a cake walk given who he was up against. That it was close was very telling. But lets see if he learns his lesson. I suspect he didn't.

 

[Coyote33]

I think our best hopes lie in litigation not legislation.

Agreed. But we need to work the best angle, as well as all others at the same time.

 

[cekim]

Agreed. But we need to work the best angle, as well as all others at the same time.

This - all angles, all the time until they are tired of hearing about this and it becomes a third rail for a generation and the cycle will start again and eventually people will, once again be apathetic enough that the pro-slavery progressive crowd starts to ramp up again in a vacuum.

That's the best case of liberty.

 

[Coyote33]

This is legislation that is being proposed with the support(?) of GOAL.
http://www.goal.org/legislation.html

Poking through this stuff, and saw:

An Act Relative to Tax Exemptions on Gun Safes and Trigger Locks

This bill would exempt gun safes and trigger locks from Massachusetts sales tax. Click here for more information

Don't we ALREADY HAVE that exemption?



I'm looking for something more like this:
Act to rectify oversights in 2014 legislation:
To make all the Law Enforcement exemptions also apply to non-law-enforcement.

An Act Relative to the Use of Shotguns for Hunting *NEW* (re-draft)

This legislation would re-write Section 66 of Chapter 131 of the General Laws concerning the use of shotgun ammunition for use in hunting. The section currently allows the use of shotgun slugs and buckshot to the open season on whitetail deer with a shotgun. With the modernization of hunting slugs many people would like to be able to use them for bear hunting. The legislation would simply rewrite the law to allow the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife to hold regulatory authority over it so that laws don’t need to be continually changed to keep up with ammunition technology. Click here for more information

I'd like to see them open up the buckshot crap for coyote hunting outside of deer season.

 

[milktree]

Poking through this stuff, and saw:

An Act Relative to Tax Exemptions on Gun Safes and Trigger Locks

This bill would exempt gun safes and trigger locks from Massachusetts sales tax.

Don't we ALREADY HAVE that exemption?

If you mean this:

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/188/House/H3275

then that bill would remove the word "commercial" from this exemption to sales tax;

Section 6. The following sales and the gross receipts therefrom shall be exempt from the tax imposed by this chapter:--
...
(rr) Sales of commercial gun safes and trigger lock devices.

Making *all* sales of gun safes and trigger lock devices sales tax free.

 

[Coyote33]

It's probably time to start a new thread about new bills for 2015. Could be one or multiple threads, depending how we want to do it.

 

[Darksideblues42]

It's probably time to start a new thread about new bills for 2015. Could be one or multiple threads, depending how we want to do it.

I would suggest 2 threads, one for bills actually filed and one for brainstorming, that way, we can keep one on topic with updates and discussion, and another for items we would like to see.

 

[Koolmoose]

Very much so, the next prez will be appointing 2 or maybe 3 SCOTUS members. One is likely a push (Ginsberg) but the others are not good. That fundamental right can quickly turn over with out "living" Constitution (read, illusory check on government).

Not only the presidential election but also the Senate will need to be pro 2A. They approve presidential nominees for the Supreme Court. If the Senate goes anti 2A in the 2016 election it may not matter much