Massachusetts Bill HD.4420 "An act to modernize gun Laws"

I had a very good conversation with Rep. Scarsdale. She had made quite an effort to go through the bill and research it herself, including meeting with all the COPs in her district about it (wow). She was very appreciative of the red line copy from the forum that I sent her! I had probably 20 minutes to talk with her. I gave a brief intro to myself, then said I was vehemently against the bill, and stated that the summary I had seen from the legislature was flat out wrong. She agreed, and asked me to outline what I had found in my reading of the bill. I gave the main points (I will post the summary I used) and pointed out all the various problems with it and how they would affect me negatively. I also mentioned the two COPs that had come out publicly against the bill, and the MCOPA statement against it (I had copies with me). She had heard of it and actually had a copy with her! She commented and asked questions like she was really listening, and finally stated that she would not support the bill! I asked about the hearings and she said it was clear there was a lot of push back from constituents and police, other reps knew the summary was a whitewash and that it looked like it would be in limbo for a long time, potentially years. They requested any info I had gathered and thought was useful, so I left her aide with all the paperwork I brought. I listed what I was bringing in an earlier post. She is a first-term legislator so might not know the ins and outs of the system yet, and I might be very naive having never really met a legislator or been a part of the political process except for voting, but I think the meeting went very well. It also showed that our efforts have not been in vain. Keep it up everyone, it's working.

My summary (part of the letters I sent to several members of the legislature; I apologized for it being sarcastic in my letters):
  • Ban concealed carry for everyone except on duty police and security, everywhere that doesn't post a "guns allowed" sign, including undeveloped land (so, no more hunting). What do victims of domestic violence, members of the LGBTQ community, those that have to travel or do business in high crime areas, those in government positions such as lawmakers and DAs, and off-duty police who may have criminal enemies do? I guess wait for someone to come and outline them in chalk. If only a tiny part of the new security measures afforded to the MA legislature were allowed to everyone!
    • Fun fact...the bill also states you need to have a gunsmith license to post any sign that might lead one to believe that guns might be on the premises. So no “proud member of the NRA” or “Glock” stickers, a first amendment violation. Would a "concealed carry allowed" sign count as a gunsmith sign under this? Probably. Meaning concealed carry is totally banned except on public roads. For everyone, even off-duty police.
  • Require you to obtain a second, gov't issued serial number for every receiver, barrel and magazine, even ones you already own, then etch it on each item. This includes the tube on your shotgun or revolver cylinder. A shotgun would have at least four separate serial numbers! That 120 year old antique, owned by teddy Roosevelt or Samuel Colt? Break out the dremel! Not clear if this must be done by a gunsmith, because...
  • Any modification to a gun basically requires a gunsmith. Plus if you change or add accessories, like sights or a flashlight, you must report it to the state.
  • Appears to require that all handguns must use “smart” technology. This does not exist except in prototype form and doesn’t work all that well. Also easily bypassed. Redundant given safe storage requirements. This along with dealer provisions is a round-about way to ban sale of all handguns in MA.
  • "Safe storage" required for everything, now it can't just be a trigger lock. You must have a locked container that will thwart the attempts of "all but the most determined" from gaining entry. What does that mean? Nobody knows!
  • In practice, ban all semi-auto rifles with no grandfathering or compensation. Only one or two models would be available for purchase or possession in the state, assuming there are any dealers left (see below).
  • Safe storage applies to UPS and FED-EX, who cannot reasonably comply. This means a driver could be arrested for accepting a package that contains a gun or barrel (that’s right, something that can only be used as a club) that isn't stored in a very robust locked container. So no more gun shipments to any dealer in the state, or to the police or military in the state, for that matter. All dealers would not be able to get inventory and would have to close. These are the dealers that also service the police as well, meaning there would be no legal way for MA police agencies to buy firearms! Dealers would also not be able to display firearms because of this, every single gun would need to be put in a locked case unless it was in direct control of a license holder.
  • A bunch of extra training and requirements to pass a state-created test to get a license to own a gun or ammo. This is akin to a poll tax or literacy test to vote, or a permit to exercise free speech. I guess that will be next.
  • Basically illegal to build your own gun, from scratch or from a kit. Too long to get into here, but the requirements to do this make it literally impossible to comply.
  • Creates an actual registry of all guns. We currently have a "transaction record" that is so mismanaged as to be useless. Except for data leaks, which occurred recently (illegally and intentionally).
  • No registration exemption for people traveling through the state. You must have an LTC , now thanks to this bill only available to residents, to register a gun, so any non-resident traveling through the state with a gun can be charged with a lifetime prohibited person garnering 2.5 year misdemeanor. This is a violation of existing federal law, the Firearm Owners Protection Act. And there is literally no way to comply with it. Sorry NH, VT and ME!
  • Creates a state-run gun surrender program for the aforementioned banned rifles. Yup, they want you to turn them in. Registration would never lead to confiscation....right?!?!


My summary of personal, negative consequences:

Sec. 173: I hike every day in areas with no cell reception that would take police 30 mintues to an hour to respond to. How do I protect myself from human or animal attack? Pepper spray is not very effective and I hike with my double-lung-transplant recipient girlfriend. Any blowback from pepper spray could kill her. I also travel into Boston into high-crime areas. My life has been threatened by a person openly carrying a large knife, and I have been caught in the middle of the large groups of illegal ATV riders that recently beat an 83 year old man almost to death. How do I defend myself against multiple attackers? Waiting fifteen minutes for police to arrive (assuming I can call them) would be a death sentence

Sec 48-49: I have to deface my personal firearms and magazines with this serial numbering nonsense. This will cost money. How many crimes were stopped by having a serialized firearm? I would recommend looking at bpdnews.com to see that criminals get firearms easily and will obviously not comply with this silliness.

Sec. 55 and 57: requirements combine to drive all dealers in the state out of business. I would have to go to another state to buy a long gun, and could not buy a handgun. GCA 68 prohibits purchasing a handgun out of your state of residence.

Sec. 60: I plan on moving all banned guns out of state, which will cost several thousand dollars. I will still own and have access to them, but the travel and storage will be expensive.

Sec. 61: I won’t be able to buy a new handgun in the state. No “smart guns” currently exist. If they did and were so effective, why isn’t law enforcement required to use them? This section is a defacto ban on sale of new handguns.

I have lived in four different states, north and south of the Mason Dixon line, and have visited and lived in many foreign countries (one of them was once part of former Yugoslavia) and I have not seen such a blatant and malicious attack on the rights and safety of citizens as HD.4420. Please take the time to read and understand its implications, both for gun owners and as precedent for future infringement of other rights.
 
DarthRevan said:
There’s nothing wrong with remembering who f***ed you.
Click to expand...
Lol. The dude I quoted said I should be hit in the head with a brick if I voted for Charlie Baker in 2018. You don’t have to tell me.

But I have more important things to deal with than internet tough guys. Save your energy for politicians that are trying to f*** us now.

But whatevs.
 
Grendizer138 said:
Lol. The dude I quoted said I should be hit in the head with a brick if I voted for Charlie Baker in 2018. You don’t have to tell me.

But I have more important things to deal with than internet tough guys. Save your energy for politicians that are trying to f*** us now.

But whatevs.
Click to expand...
Admittedly I’ve been glossing over most of this thread for news and missed that one.
 
NHCraigT said:
www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Massachusetts Police Departments Warn of an Unconstitutional Gun Grab - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ By Jake McGuigan Massachusetts lawmakers are so drastically overreaching with a 140-page gun control proposal that local police departments are flashing lights and blaring sirens because it is just that bad. The Ware, Mass., Police Department posted a warning to...
www.thetruthaboutguns.com www.thetruthaboutguns.com
Click to expand...
Most police chiefs in Massachusetts are hired through a political process and unfortunately do whatever the mayor or town council informs them to do. Or find a job elsewhere.
 
CWulf said:
There are 160 seats. 135 are held by Democrats and 25 by republicans.... so the score will probably be 135 in favor and 25 (at best) opposed.
Click to expand...
Can a judge put a stop or hold on the law if it becomes a law , because it's unconstitutional. Clearly. What's the next step what happens. Do we have any judges who can step in. Wish I knew how the government worked.
Blows my mind this is literally a thing. Whoever is running this state is destroying it.
 
PioneerHD said:
Can a judge put a stop or hold on the law if it becomes a law , because it's unconstitutional. Clearly. What's the next step what happens. Do we have any judges who can step in. Wish I knew how the government worked.
Blows my mind this is literally a thing. Whoever is running this state is destroying it.
Click to expand...
This is such a huge bill that there is very little chance a judge or even SCOTUS will shoot it all down. We’re probably looking at years after it goes into effect and before it gets to SCOTUS, and even then it’s unlikely theyll strike down the whole thing. This assumes the same Supreme Court and not a new one or a packed one after the dems take back majorities in both houses next year and the presidency.
 
PioneerHD said:
Can a judge put a stop or hold on the law if it becomes a law , because it's unconstitutional. Clearly. What's the next step what happens. Do we have any judges who can step in. Wish I knew how the government worked.
Blows my mind this is literally a thing. Whoever is running this state is destroying it.
Click to expand...

Can't say until it gets passed.

There are certainly parts of it that would trigger an injunction almost immediately, I would think, in the post-Bruen era. If the legislature is smart, they'll tone those parts down to make things harder on us.

And they're hardly "destroying the state" if most of the people here applaud what they're doing... This is why civil rights shouldn't be left to popular opinion.
 
Picton said:
Can't say until it gets passed.

There are certainly parts of it that would trigger an injunction almost immediately, I would think, in the post-Bruen era. If the legislature is smart, they'll tone those parts down to make things harder on us.

And they're hardly "destroying the state" if most of the people here applaud what they're doing... This is why civil rights shouldn't be left to popular opinion.
Click to expand...
Rights shouldn't even be able to be adjusted through a constitutional change.

God given rights are just that
 
PioneerHD said:
Can a judge put a stop or hold on the law if it becomes a law , because it's unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Yes

PioneerHD said:
Clearly. What's the next step what happens. Do we have any judges who can step in.
Click to expand...
If the House Document becomes a house bill with a companion senate bill they both get voted on.
When passed it goes to the governor for signature
After that it's law and THEN we can sue for injunction.
As far as a judge that will give an injunction - not likely in Mass.
PioneerHD said:
I knew how the government worked.
Blows my mind this is literally a thing. Whoever is running this state is destroying it.
Click to expand...
Concur
 
Coda said:
I emailed my local PD here in a small town in western MA, no reply.......

It is a small shared department for two towns. Who knows how often they even check their emails.
Click to expand...
I ended up typing out a letter and delivering it to my towns front desk on my way home from work today. Chief was not in, but they at least will pass it forward along. Will update if I hear anything. Hopefully no crickets
 
pastera said:
IF the House Document becomes a house bill with a companion senate bill they both get voted on.
When passed it goes to the governor for signature
After that it's law and THEN we can sue for injunction.
As far as a judge that will give an injunction - not likely in Mass.
Click to expand...
This..
Also, If they pass it and it gets signed as a normal Bill it will be 90 days before it takes effect. But if the legislature or the Governor gives it an Emergency designation, it takes effect immediately.
 
CWulf said:
This..
Also, If they pass it and it gets signed as a normal Bill it will be 90 days before it takes effect. But if the legislature or the Governor gives it an Emergency designation, it takes effect immediately.
Click to expand...
Most of it has delays written into it in order to setup the required infrastructure
If they were to make all sections take effect immediately even lefty Mass judges are likely to issue an injunction since putting someone in jail for not complying when the government made it impossible to actually comply is frowned upon even here in hell.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
The left is playing the racism card and then saying 'well not really racists and we think racism is bad.....but....this law here says that slaves can't own weapons'. It's almost comical.
Click to expand...
I think Thomas planned it to enjoy the irony of these arguments after the way he was savaged by the left during his confirmation and the years since on the court.
 
TLB said:
I think Thomas planned it to enjoy the irony of these arguments after the way he was savaged by the left during his confirmation and the years since on the court.
Click to expand...

Thomas wrote, very clearly, that his admission to Yale Law School was the result of affirmative action. His entire career, and his entire juris prudence, has been a repudiation of that! Affirmative action burnt him to the core, and his entire life’s mission has been to uphold freedom and meritocracy.
 
Grendizer138 said:
Lol. The dude I quoted said I should be hit in the head with a brick if I voted for Charlie Baker in 2018. You don’t have to tell me.

But I have more important things to deal with than internet tough guys. Save your energy for politicians that are trying to f*** us now.

But whatevs.
Click to expand...
Baker was the best Governor that Mass ever had....These others need to be voted out.
 

Similar threads

Mexico is suing US gun manufacturers because its strict gun laws don’t deter crime.
Replies
7
Views
325
akma
A
3 House Democrats file bill to ban 50 caliber rifles
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
T-Unit
T
Scott signs VT Suppressor Hunting Bill into law
Replies
23
Views
896
1sern
1
Gatling Gun. Need another safe
Replies
19
Views
674
Asaltweapon
Asaltweapon
NEW- Gun Grab Bill Six-member conference committee to decide Legislature's gun control proposal
Replies
24
Views
1K
StevieP
StevieP
Back
Top Bottom