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

Ben Cartwright SASS said:
Since we have had de facto registration for years unless you can show you no longer have it what is to stop them from saying "turn them in or prove you don't have them anymore"
Click to expand...
I brought that up in another thread... i.e., the question of how the old "transfers" database info will be used against us if/when it goes into (or forms the basis of) the all-new "Everything Bagel" super-duper anti-gunowner database. This is an advantage the MA oppressors have over the oppressors in many other states.

I think we have to assume that the information will be used in the manner you've described. 🙁
 
Ben Cartwright SASS said:
I read one of the posts that said the state might know that there are AW's out there but they don't know who has them. This was said about NY/CT but the implication is MA also is the same.

I was just checking some FA10's, not saying whose ;) and looked at an FA10 for a Stag #1, .223, shows model and "large capacity" with the buyers address. Since that is a banned scary gun and they have the manufacturer, model and address don't they have all they need to ask "do you have it or was it in the boating accident also?"

Since we have had defacto registration for years unless you can show you no longer have it what is to stop them from saying "turn them in or prove you don't have them anymore"
Click to expand...

If you're talking about door-to-door confiscation, you're no longer just talking about an anti-2A law. You're now bringing in 4A.

The courts would not let that stand for a hot second. At all. The injunction would be immediate, the overrule swift.

One thing we MIGHT be discovering from this whole shitshow is that when it comes right down to it, a lot of rank-and-file legislators in Mass are really not that into making activist law that will find its way into the courts and get overturned. The "guns are just tools" argument did not work for them, and neither did the "it's my right" argument, but the "this law will get smacked down faster than you realize" argument actually did seem to carry some weight, even in this state.

That was the clear message behind Mariano's statement last night, especially the latter paragraphs: it's wasn't a let's not pass this law, it was a let's make sure this law won't get challenged in court statement. Which confirms me in one of my long-held beliefs: that most legislators in most governments are generally conniving time-servers who lack the courage of their convictions. the Dem supermajority in this state is not composed of activist gun-grabbers: there are a few of those, but most of them are too scared to go that far.
 
Reptile said:
I don't know the whole thing was anti-climactic.

Feels like a ruined orgasm.

Like when you stop pounding because you don't want to have an orgasm right away.
But then you have a mini-orgasm that is no good.

But, to finish properly you have to recover and bust the rest out but you are drooping.

No we have to wait till the fall.

I'm going to have one hell of a case of Blue Balls.
Click to expand...
Reptile just after he sent that post

randy-marsh-south-park.gif
 
Reply from Rep Xharos. I asked if he knew what is going on with the bill.

“Gm Sigshooter,
Leadership is still deciding over which committee.
I am on Public Safety and hoping is assigned to our committee.
It has stalled and will be heard sometime in the fall or winter.
Great work by all who spoke out!
Have a great day Sir
Rep X

Steven G. Xiarhos”
 
ruger71 said:
We still need to keep the pressure on regardless of the Fall/Winter crap!
Click to expand...
Yep - MrHappy had a good idea with clubs cutting off access to LE training.
Hopefully, clubs will do this and send letters notifying and why.

Though I've yet to get a reply from my reps., I'll be sending follow-up letters. Let them know that we understand this is a stall tactic.
 
July 24, 2023.....Top House Democrats will back down from their controversial push to approve a 140-page omnibus gun reform measure before lawmakers break for vacation in August.

Less than a week after he convened a series of closed-doors meetings to hear from representatives about the sweeping proposal unveiled June 26, House Speaker Ron Mariano told his chamber Monday evening that the new goal is to bring the measure forward in autumn.

"While the House's commitment to pursuing a comprehensive update remains steadfast, a new legal landscape will be the greatest threat to those efforts. That is why the House believes that we must thoroughly evaluate all of the proposals made in [the legislation] over the Summer, and that House Members must have the chance to continue to speak with their constituents and provide feedback," Mariano wrote in a message obtained by the News Service. "House leadership will continue to work on the bill until it is ready for debate this Fall." The retreat punts for at least a month, and possibly longer, action on legislation that drew incendiary criticism from firearm owners and set off a procedural fight with Senate Democrats.

Mariano had signaled that he wanted the bill to win House approval by the end of July, before lawmakers begin to filter out for a traditional slow period in August, and might muscle it through without a formal committee review because of disagreements with senators over which panel should lead that process.

The Quincy Democrat did not outline a path forward through the intraparty House-Senate squabble, reiterating his view that the Judiciary Committee -- which bill author Rep. Michael Day co-chairs -- should be tasked with convening the public hearing to solicit feedback on the legislation because of its work in response to previous U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Mariano pointed to an assault weapons regulation bill from the 2021-2022 session that the House sent to the Public Safety Committee and the Senate wanted to send to the Judiciary Committee -- a preference the House accommodated. The legislation ultimately died in a study order. "The House believes that the Joint Committee on the Judiciary is uniquely equipped to navigate the legal challenges brought on by SCOTUS decisions, just as it did during our initial response to Bruen and the overturning of Roe," Mariano wrote. "We remain disappointed that the Senate delayed our intended review of this gun violence legislation by insisting on its referral to the Public Safety Committee, despite the fact that just last year, the Senate insisted that a different late-filed bill proposing changes to our gun laws be referred to Judiciary instead of Public Safety."

The speaker continued, "Regardless, you have my word that we will spend the ensuing weeks working with you to address concerns and questions you and your constituents may have about the proposed legislation." Senate Democrats have said they are interested in pursuing some kind of firearms legislation this session, particularly to deal with a recent uptick in untraceable "ghost guns" that law enforcement officials have observed, without outlining any specific timeline or details. They offered to convene a hearing on "all gun safety matters" this month before the Public Safety Committee to "ensure that all voices are heard before any decisions are made," but the offer never found favor in the House.

Representatives huddled for a pair of private summits Mariano and Day hosted last week. During those meetings, Mariano said in his message to lawmakers, many questions "were centered around the challenging new legal landscape" in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that forced states to rethink their firearms licensing laws. "As you have heard me say many times, the Bruen decision fundamentally changed how courts review state gun laws and immediately jeopardized aspects of the laws that have made our Commonwealth a national leader in reducing gun violence," Mariano wrote. Day's bill stretches across a wide range of gun-related issues, including proposed reforms to red flag laws, right-to-carry provisions, requirements to register firearm parts, and new limits on public spaces where firearms are allowed.

Second Amendment and gun owners groups have been vocal in their criticism of the proposal. The National Association for Gun Rights suggested its members consider leaving Massachusetts because their firearms rights are "at serious risk in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," and the Massachusetts-based Gun Owners Action League called the bill "a historic attack against the entire 2A community."
 
sig shooter said:
Can you imagine what we could do if we acted like a united front every time a bullshit piece of legislation comes up? Rep Day may have awakened a sleeping giant.
Click to expand...

I'm pleased too, but we shouldn't get too excited; we've been unified before, and we'll be unified again.

The pressure from us helped, but I don't think it helped as much as the fact that this bill goes WAAAAAYY too far. Day will be careful to scale that back in the fall to make it far more palatable, and we'll see then what we can accomplish once we rev up our advocacy once more.

I do think it's likely the new bill won't do anything drastic at all. It'll be an easy bill for both houses to support, with nothing judicially objectionable. Under those circumstances, and given where we already are under MA law, I'm not sure what that kind of bill would look like. Under Bruen, the current system kind of goes as far as it can. I can think of a few things Day could slide in there, but I'm superstitious enough not to want to post them here, lol.
 
Picton said:
I'm pleased too, but we shouldn't get too excited; we've been unified before, and we'll be unified again.

The pressure from us helped, but I don't think it helped as much as the fact that this bill goes WAAAAAYY too far. Day will be careful to scale that back in the fall to make it far more palatable, and we'll see then what we can accomplish once we rev up our advocacy once more.

I do think it's likely the new bill won't do anything drastic at all. It'll be an easy bill for both houses to support, with nothing judicially objectionable. Under those circumstances, and given where we already are under MA law, I'm not sure what that kind of bill would look like. Under Bruen, the current system kind of goes as far as it can. I can think of a few things Day could slide in there, but I'm superstitious enough not to want to post them here, lol.
Click to expand...
You are 100% right. They'll put in "ghost guns" and a few minor tweaks that will probably withstand judicial review and call it a day. Then they will strut around and say "see, we did something about guns".
 
Btw, I sent an email to Michelle Ciccolo, my Rep, who would be quite happy disarming us unwashed peasants. I, very respectfully, tried to reason with her about the constitutionality and fairness of the proposed law, and the expense to the state fighting it in court, likely to lose in the end.
 

Similar threads

Legislative push starts to repeal Massachusetts gun law
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
zork51
Z
New and “improved” gun laws. Hahaha
3 4 5
Replies
129
Views
2K
Mark from ?
M
AG Bondi Proposes Stronger Gun Confiscation Laws
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Individualist
Individualist
Shush act
2
Replies
42
Views
865
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Misdemeanor Assault and Battery Conviction Massachusetts 1994
Replies
22
Views
535
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Back
Top Bottom