MA AGl candidate declares he can demand all new guns be finger-print locked

[Mesatchornug]

looks convenient

Conveniently, the "unauthorized" user doesn't put his finger on the reader, then it fails to fire. I sure look forward to the first ftf from a dead battery.

Sent from this Infernal Machine

 

[DispositionMatrix]

He is trying to out-anti-gun his opponents.

 

[exo]

Just as I said on the other thread and now it is confirmed, That he would stretch the "Consumer Protection Law" beyond its limits. This is what happens when laws are passed without being complete, That is to say by allowing and empowering an administrative agency to make regulations to adjust the law.

It's already stretched beyond it's limit. How exactly is it "an unfair or deceptive practice" to sell me a handgun that doesn't have a stupid 10+ lbs trigger? I think it's decidedly unfair to sell me a handgun that had it's design purposefully sabotaged to give me a shitty trigger pull to meet some ridiculous government mandate.

 

[Keeper]

Not as long as you report it stolen BEFORE it's used in a crime. No different if someone steals your car and they go on a crime spree with it.

Do you live in MA? Aren't you required to render your guns inoperable without any further clarification on what that means provided? AFAIK, there's no statute requiring automobile owners to render their cars inoperable. My understanding is that the potential for liability for a stolen firearm is unbounded.

 

[Quiet]

Do you live in MA? Aren't you required to render your guns inoperable without any further clarification on what that means provided? AFAIK, there's no statute requiring automobile owners to render their cars inoperable. My understanding is that the potential for liability for a stolen firearm is unbounded.

Mass requires that cars be locked, the key removed from the vehicle.

[no person] shall allow such vehicle to stand in any way and remain unattended without stopping the engine of said vehicle, effectively setting the brakes thereof or making it fast, and locking and removing the key from the locking device and from the vehicle.

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section13

 

[Hiltonizer]

If you guys don't support this, you might as well wrapping the barrel with cotton candy and putting it in a kid's mouth.

 

[EddieCoyle]

If you guys don't support this, you might as well wrapping the barrel with cotton candy and putting it in a kid's mouth.

OK. I warned you not to do this, and you went ahead and kept it up anyway. So we got what we have here today.

Perhaps I've overestimated your ability to think things through, so let me spell this out for you as simply as I can:

Your post above contributes absolutely nothing. It's completely out of place in the thread, and it's only purpose is to be inflammatory.

When you call someone out like that, he can either ignore it, or respond. Those are really the only two possible things that can happen, right? If the insulted party (and the mods) ignore it, it makes it look like doing shit like this is OK, and it starts to happen more. If the insulted party responds, the thread - whatever it's about - instantly turns into a shit storm.

Both of these results are undesirable. Did you get that? Absolutely no good can come of a post like yours. There's no possible good result, or even a neutral result. It's always bad.

I understand that you disagree with a stance that Quiet took a few months ago. I did too. Most people here did. In fact, I doubt you'd be posting shit if you didn't think everyone backed you up. But you don't have to go out of your way to bring it back up (again) every time the guy posts something.

You're acting like a fat, bitchy, soon-to-be-ex-wife that brings up past transgressions in a new argument. Nobody likes that.

 

[Keeper]

Mass requires that cars be locked, the key removed from the vehicle.

http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section13

Right and that's my point. If the same was legislated for firearms, things would be much more straightforward. The law for cars doesn't imply anything further beyond locking it.

You are not required to render your car inoperable. If someone defeats the lock of your gun, you have more problems than if someone defeats the lock of your car. I'm just pointing to a subtle but relevant difference.

"so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user."

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131l

 

[Paul455]

Mass. is the place where freedom was born, and then died.

The politicians here are just plain crazy.

The root cause is not with law abiding citizens, it is with gangs, criminals, and the mentally ill.

That is where the focus needs to be.

 

[inerlogic]

[h=1] MA attorney general candidate Tolman declares he can demand all new guns be finger-print locked, without passing new laws[/h]
http://bearingarms.com/deranged-ma-...finger-print-locked-without-passing-new-laws/

i can demand he blow me, doesn't mean it's going to happen....