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

SIGNES said:
Something will pass. So, the question is, what can be pitched that we can live with. I'll risk the flames again and suggest the following as possible things we could negotiate. As I have been flamed repeatedly for saying absolutism is futile, I'll take the flames again.

1) Live fire and written test components for licensing. Trainers are private and the same pool of folks currently sanctioned to train and process to be certified as a trainer. Written test is created by GOAL. Standard of live fire performance is roughly 50% of what the State Police have to meet. (I personally worry about anyone daily carrying who couldn't meet that very low bar.)
2) AWB remains so they can say they have it but it's changed to "No full auto weapons modified down to semi after initial manufacture in a manner reversible with the restoration of removed parts". 'Feature' tests and 'named weapons' prohibitions are removed except as preceding and remove the crap solely related to appearance. Follow federal minimum overall length and barrel length standards for non-tax-stamped SBR rifles.
3) SBRs, Suppressors etc. congruent with federal law (tax stamp etc.) but with an extra State penalty for possession without a stamp.
4) All private sales/transfers of firearms must be done through an FFL with 4473 background check and transaction reporting and a nominal (capped say, $30?) fee for FFL processing.
5) EFA-10 process and serialization requirement remains for 'home made (80% lowers etc.)' guns with stiff penalties for 'unregistered' after 7 days. (Assembly with a 4473'd serialized receiver does not constitute 'manufacture'.)
6) State penalties for full-auto, bump stock, forced reset mods without a federal tax stamp as a 'machine gun'.
7) Tolerate a "Red Flag" law but with stiff penalties for those who falsely make a complaint. Requirements for the return of all firearms confiscated (for up to 60 days without a renewal court proceeding where the 'flagged' can face their accuser) when a 'red flag' is invoked with stiff penalties for lost or damaged firearms held in police custody and requirements to 'male whole' within 30 days.
8) No prohibitions on 'standard capacity' magazines (30 rounds rifle, whatever ships with the model of handgun nationally). 30 Round magazines must be transported locked between home and range or hunting area. (Yeah, I know, but let 'em ban the drums and happy sticks so we can stop having the rest be a pain in the ass. I mean we do correct them from "high capacity" to "standard capacity", so, accept a real world definition of 'standard') Remove prohibitions for LTC holders to carry a pistol while hunting.
9) No more 'roster' but continued prohibitions against guns which are camouflaged to appear as something else or which are under a certain size (say, less than Glock 42/P365 sized to address the the 'Saturday night special" concern) to carry as opposed to collect or use at the range.
10) Transport in cars 'on person' for LTC holders. or in a locked case/out of view trunk and unloaded.
11) Storage in a gun safe of types in 'common use' or in a 'room vault' dedicated to the purpose and only readily accessible but he license holder(s) in the household when the licensee is not at home with the firearm with a mandate to report all lost or stolen firearms. Criminal penalty for gun owners when children in the home gain access to firearms that were not stored properly.
12) Stiffer penalties for possession without a permit, very stiff ones for carrying without a permit.
13) Requirements for licensing turnaround times and renewals with actual teeth so it happens in a consistent and timely manner.
14) Allow 'no guns permitted' signs to carry the force of law with, say, a thousand dollar fine for violation if signage was clearly posted but no loss ior suspension of license for a first offense.
15) Codify blood alcohol level to match that for DUI for carrying while intoxicated.
16) Minimum age for an LTC of 21 except where an employer requires carry.
17) Ban "open carry" except while hunting.


Maybe you hate some or all of these, maybe you too could live with them but, start being ready to think of some bone you can throw so that can still say "MA has some of the strongest gun safety laws in the country' without 'peppering your angus' with those 'strong laws'.

EDIT: The above would pass a Heller/Bruen test btw.
Click to expand...
If you condense that down to 140 pages I'll take a look at it.
 
SIGNES said:
Something will pass. So, the question is, what can be pitched that we can live with. I'll risk the flames again and suggest the following as possible things we could negotiate. As I have been flamed repeatedly for saying absolutism is futile, I'll take the flames again.

1) Live fire and written test components for licensing. Trainers are private and the same pool of folks currently sanctioned to train and process to be certified as a trainer. Written test is created by GOAL. Standard of live fire performance is roughly 50% of what the State Police have to meet. (I personally worry about anyone daily carrying who couldn't meet that very low bar.)
2) AWB remains so they can say they have it but it's changed to "No full auto weapons modified down to semi after initial manufacture in a manner reversible with the restoration of removed parts". 'Feature' tests and 'named weapons' prohibitions are removed except as preceding and remove the crap solely related to appearance. Follow federal minimum overall length and barrel length standards for non-tax-stamped SBR rifles.
3) SBRs, Suppressors etc. congruent with federal law (tax stamp etc.) but with an extra State penalty for possession without a stamp.
4) All private sales/transfers of firearms must be done through an FFL with 4473 background check and transaction reporting and a nominal (capped say, $30?) fee for FFL processing.
5) EFA-10 process and serialization requirement remains for 'home made (80% lowers etc.)' guns with stiff penalties for 'unregistered' after 7 days. (Assembly with a 4473'd serialized receiver does not constitute 'manufacture'.)
6) State penalties for full-auto, bump stock, forced reset mods without a federal tax stamp as a 'machine gun'.
7) Tolerate a "Red Flag" law but with stiff penalties for those who falsely make a complaint. Requirements for the return of all firearms confiscated (for up to 60 days without a renewal court proceeding where the 'flagged' can face their accuser) when a 'red flag' is invoked with stiff penalties for lost or damaged firearms held in police custody and requirements to 'male whole' within 30 days.
8) No prohibitions on 'standard capacity' magazines (30 rounds rifle, whatever ships with the model of handgun nationally). 30 Round magazines must be transported locked between home and range or hunting area. (Yeah, I know, but let 'em ban the drums and happy sticks so we can stop having the rest be a pain in the ass. I mean we do correct them from "high capacity" to "standard capacity", so, accept a real world definition of 'standard') Remove prohibitions for LTC holders to carry a pistol while hunting.
9) No more 'roster' but continued prohibitions against guns which are camouflaged to appear as something else or which are under a certain size (say, less than Glock 42/P365 sized to address the the 'Saturday night special" concern) to carry as opposed to collect or use at the range.
10) Transport in cars 'on person' for LTC holders. or in a locked case/out of view trunk and unloaded.
11) Storage in a gun safe of types in 'common use' or in a 'room vault' dedicated to the purpose and only readily accessible but he license holder(s) in the household when the licensee is not at home with the firearm with a mandate to report all lost or stolen firearms. Criminal penalty for gun owners when children in the home gain access to firearms that were not stored properly.
12) Stiffer penalties for possession without a permit, very stiff ones for carrying without a permit.
13) Requirements for licensing turnaround times and renewals with actual teeth so it happens in a consistent and timely manner.
14) Allow 'no guns permitted' signs to carry the force of law with, say, a thousand dollar fine for violation if signage was clearly posted but no loss ior suspension of license for a first offense.
15) Codify blood alcohol level to match that for DUI for carrying while intoxicated.
16) Minimum age for an LTC of 21 except where an employer requires carry.
17) Ban "open carry" except while hunting.


Maybe you hate some or all of these, maybe you too could live with them but, start being ready to think of some bone you can throw so that can still say "MA has some of the strongest gun safety laws in the country' without 'peppering your angus' with those 'strong laws'.

EDIT: The above would pass a Heller/Bruen test btw.
Click to expand...
Stop It Michael Jordan GIF
 
SIGNES said:
Every single item in the Bill of Rights has been found by legal precedent and upheld stature to have some limits. Every last one. Some are even objectively reasonable, many are absolute bullshit we love with nonetheless.

My religious freedom doesn't grant me the right to eat babies. My freedom to assemble doesn't grant me the right to get five hundred of my besties and have a picnic in the middle of Rt 128 etc. etc,
Click to expand...
 
Want to compromise?
Three levels of permitting

Cary C: Permitless restricted
  • 21
  • Not Prohibited
  • Duty to inform
  • no carry in sensitive places
Carry B: Basic LTC
  • 21
  • Not prohibited
  • No duty to inform
  • Training requirement same as current
  • no carry in sensitive places
Carry A: Enhanced LTC
  • 21
  • Not prohibited
  • No duty to inform
  • Enhanced training - live fire (police qual), Use of force (civilian), Defensive use in crowds, etc
  • No carry restriction (except active exclusion with metal detectors)
  • No restrictions on types of firearms (no lists, no AWB, no mag restrictions, silencers and MGs for all)
 
HARRYM said:
I'm thinking we all understand that addicts don't work and therefore would be unable to buy legal drugs......but I could be wrong....

In any event legal drugs don't change the criminal behavior of addicts who commit crimes to buy drugs, legal or otherwise..

It's insane to apply logic to drugs and drug addicted addicts and is akin to the "why can't we all get along" mentality and is truly effed up shit.
Click to expand...
time.com

Want to Win the War on Drugs? Portugal Might Have the Answer

In 2001, it became the first country to decriminalize the consumption of all drugs.
time.com time.com

We incentivize criminality among the addicted with our insane punishments and simultaneous handing over of funds for being "disabled"
 
Rob Boudrie said:
2) Are you aware that the feds already have "once a machine gun, always a machine gun" and you cannot make a full auto a legal semi-auto by irreversable conversion to semi config? Also, there are already guidelines for non-taxed SBR rifles - federal felony.

4) WTF?

5) This creates the concept of "registration" as opposed to "reporting". A subtle but big difference.

8) If this deal is negotiated, do you really think it will stop there? Are you new to the this?

9) WTF?

14) This totally ignores the fact that many "private property" places are quasi-public with open invites. Also, be aware that any penalty for such a "negotiated item" would almost certainly a a misdafelony.

15) Get this introduced separately with a title "an act to further restrict carrying guns while intoxicated" and it will likely pass.

16) Minimum LTC age 21 has been in effect for quite a few years now.

The problem with your list is that is the traditional "compromise" of "We'll take half now and be back for half of what is left later and take half of what is left, then repeat". Remember, GOAL had a deal with the original MA AW ban and even complimented it, even though it had a post-ban mag freeze.

One area we are bound to lose is ghost guns - we need to stop them from having every piece of garbage they can think of onto such legislation "sure to pass" train. Do not endorse a ghost gun ban, but get it stand alone and the other stuff cannot go along for a ride on what the majority in the legislature will see as a no-brainer. Yeah, I know - but calling them as I see them.

And how about:

1) Change the new resident exemption to include hi cap guns (negate Comm v. Cornelius)
2) Remove the "must have LTC with issuance requirements that no LTC has" impossible to meet clause of the gun show / competition exemption.
3) Clarify that said exemption includes high cap (so the existing law is not at risk of being Corneliused)
4) Add that dropped charges, expired CWOFs and not guilty findings cannot be used to deny an LTC (that pesky due process stuff)
Click to expand...
Very much aware that most of my list is a mixture of what's already on the books (this was by design) and letting MA have it's own laws that they're freaking out while watching other states change. it was acknowledging, as you point out, that there's no way we escape some law being passed as you note, most likely relating to 'ghost guns'.

The ' marks around unregistered for those 'ghost' guns was a deliberate nod to the reality that transaction records are the 'registry that isn't a registry' B.S we have now. As you say, we're going to lose. The trick will be not losing what actually matters, the right to assemble our own firearms.

Re: your four items. Yep! Agree on all counts. Most especially on item 4. Not convicted is not convicted.

You note, correctly, that we're bound to lose on ghost guns. So, if we're going to lose on that one anyway, why not use the opportunity to reclaim other rights, fix some ambiguities (the threshold for too drunk to carry etc) currently designed to let them jam people up. so the legal climate is less jail-trappy than current law. One of the biggest problems with Day's #$%^& was it was a thousand tiny changes to language in existing code that perpetuated the inscrutability of the legal environment. Replacing the hodge-dodge of laws strewn about the code with a contiguous block of text would serve two purposes:

1) Make them easier to understand.
2) Make them easier to challenge in the courts both of law and public opinion. Day's piecemeal approach was intentionally inscrutable. They used the entire duration of the sham listening tour and longer to write it to be that way on purpose. To keep the law so tangled and complicated and contradictory that, if they want you, they get you.

The thing about compromise is; we can either compromise or be compromised. There is no circumstance under which we get FLA-style gun laws in MA. It can't happen. And, here's the part nobody wants to hear, those 'no compromise' 'free states' aren't going to stay that way. There is too much money, too much irrational fear.

The long term winning strategy is going to depend on having legal structures that make it impossible for the opposition to ignore the simple truth that licensed gun owners aren't the ones committing the crimes so more restrictions on what licensed gun owners can do doesn't solve the problem.
 
SIGNES said:
Something will pass. So, the question is, what can be pitched that we can live with. I'll risk the flames again and suggest the following as possible things we could negotiate. As I have been flamed repeatedly for saying absolutism is futile, I'll take the flames again.

1) Live fire and written test components for licensing. Trainers are private and the same pool of folks currently sanctioned to train and process to be certified as a trainer. Written test is created by GOAL. Standard of live fire performance is roughly 50% of what the State Police have to meet. (I personally worry about anyone daily carrying who couldn't meet that very low bar.)
2) AWB remains so they can say they have it but it's changed to "No full auto weapons modified down to semi after initial manufacture in a manner reversible with the restoration of removed parts". 'Feature' tests and 'named weapons' prohibitions are removed except as preceding and remove the crap solely related to appearance. Follow federal minimum overall length and barrel length standards for non-tax-stamped SBR rifles.
3) SBRs, Suppressors etc. congruent with federal law (tax stamp etc.) but with an extra State penalty for possession without a stamp.
4) All private sales/transfers of firearms must be done through an FFL with 4473 background check and transaction reporting and a nominal (capped say, $30?) fee for FFL processing.
5) EFA-10 process and serialization requirement remains for 'home made (80% lowers etc.)' guns with stiff penalties for 'unregistered' after 7 days. (Assembly with a 4473'd serialized receiver does not constitute 'manufacture'.)
6) State penalties for full-auto, bump stock, forced reset mods without a federal tax stamp as a 'machine gun'.
7) Tolerate a "Red Flag" law but with stiff penalties for those who falsely make a complaint. Requirements for the return of all firearms confiscated (for up to 60 days without a renewal court proceeding where the 'flagged' can face their accuser) when a 'red flag' is invoked with stiff penalties for lost or damaged firearms held in police custody and requirements to 'male whole' within 30 days.
8) No prohibitions on 'standard capacity' magazines (30 rounds rifle, whatever ships with the model of handgun nationally). 30 Round magazines must be transported locked between home and range or hunting area. (Yeah, I know, but let 'em ban the drums and happy sticks so we can stop having the rest be a pain in the ass. I mean we do correct them from "high capacity" to "standard capacity", so, accept a real world definition of 'standard') Remove prohibitions for LTC holders to carry a pistol while hunting.
9) No more 'roster' but continued prohibitions against guns which are camouflaged to appear as something else or which are under a certain size (say, less than Glock 42/P365 sized to address the the 'Saturday night special" concern) to carry as opposed to collect or use at the range.
10) Transport in cars 'on person' for LTC holders. or in a locked case/out of view trunk and unloaded.
11) Storage in a gun safe of types in 'common use' or in a 'room vault' dedicated to the purpose and only readily accessible but he license holder(s) in the household when the licensee is not at home with the firearm with a mandate to report all lost or stolen firearms. Criminal penalty for gun owners when children in the home gain access to firearms that were not stored properly.
12) Stiffer penalties for possession without a permit, very stiff ones for carrying without a permit.
13) Requirements for licensing turnaround times and renewals with actual teeth so it happens in a consistent and timely manner.
14) Allow 'no guns permitted' signs to carry the force of law with, say, a thousand dollar fine for violation if signage was clearly posted but no loss ior suspension of license for a first offense.
15) Codify blood alcohol level to match that for DUI for carrying while intoxicated.
16) Minimum age for an LTC of 21 except where an employer requires carry.
17) Ban "open carry" except while hunting.


Maybe you hate some or all of these, maybe you too could live with them but, start being ready to think of some bone you can throw so that can still say "MA has some of the strongest gun safety laws in the country' without 'peppering your angus' with those 'strong laws'.

EDIT: The above would pass a Heller/Bruen test btw.
Click to expand...

1) No. How about just a background check at issuance if we are to remain required to be in possession of a permit. Let people take courses on their own if they think they need them.
2) No except following the federal laws as we haven't any choice until they get successfully challenged.
3) No with the above exception.
4) See above.
5) Ditto with the above.
6) Same but I'll add that for some reason, everything written so far has an inclusion of added extra penalties in as a solution to exercising a right.
7) No and there are already laws on the books for falsifying police reports.
8) No on mag limits of which you can carry and yes on allowing pistol carry while hunting.
9) Yes on eliminating the roaster and no on the rest of the sentence.
10) As it is, only high cap long guns need to be cased, I don't want any more restrictions.
11) Should be left to the individual household on storage decisions as each has its own unique situations. I use gun locks but that's my decision to do so on firearms not in use.
12) How about just enforcing some of the laws already written and again with stiffer penalties.
13) Yes for a change.
14) No, a simple request to leave with a trespass if the request is ignored.
15) Do you think you should be arrested for DUI by having your car keys on you and blowing a 1.0?
16) Make a decision on at what age are people considered adults and can make rational decisions. 18 for some rights and 21 for others, always a floating goal post.
17) Why? Will that also include police and other government entities or just the plebs with no special carve-outs.
 
whatluck said:
Lol

The slippery slope is the govt banning anything. I never said anything about pedos or other crimes that actually have victims. Some troll did, and half of nes took the bait.
Click to expand...
If I'm understanding your point, I think there's confusion over the difference between banning a thing and prohibiting a behavior. (Our language is sloppy here and allows these to be used interchangeably.)
 
drgrant said:
If they want path of least resistance they're just going to put in the two liner for "ghost gun ban" or similar garbage and ram that through. Thats what the rumor was all along to begin with
anyways. even the box stores would quietly sign onto that shit because they dont like that fact that everyone isnt as cowardly as they are.




most of that shit is unconstitutional.

Also 11, thats faggot f*** bullshit, basically you're saying that poors shouldn't be allowed to own guns and that nobody can become a gun owner without owning a f***ing safe, which is
retarded. Not to mention someone with a temporary dwelling wouldnt be able to lawfully store firearms.




no, it wouldn't. Like who are you posting for, really? This sock puppet act is getting old.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point in 'number 11'. "Gun safes in common use" are 40 dollar Amazon items. it's not expecting the poor to go buy a three thousand dollar rifle condo.

The 'room vault' portion was to correct Day's efforts to make the 'locked room" stuff Day's version prohibited clarified in a way that those (including FFLs) who currently store outside of a safe but securely can continue to do so.

A two liner ghost gun ban would likely be written to make it illegal to even have G-code or drawings on your computer and ban modifications as Day's bill tried to. Get ahead of them. Preserve the right to assemble and modify but make them feel safe knowing you know you'll go to jail if you pass your product around like candy out of the back of a van. Remember these people don't have the slightest idea why a typical law abiding gun owner would ever swap out an upper or change a grip frame. Get ahead of them to let them address their real concern (more guns they can't trace in the hands of the unlicensed) in a way that doesn't screw everyone.
 
SIGNES said:
Very much aware that most of my list is a mixture of what's already on the books (this was by design) and letting MA have it's own laws that they're freaking out while watching other states change. it was acknowledging, as you point out, that there's no way we escape some law being passed as you note, most likely relating to 'ghost guns'.

The ' marks around unregistered for those 'ghost' guns was a deliberate nod to the reality that transaction records are the 'registry that isn't a registry' B.S we have now. As you say, we're going to lose. The trick will be not losing what actually matters, the right to assemble our own firearms.

Re: your four items. Yep! Agree on all counts. Most especially on item 4. Not convicted is not convicted.

You note, correctly, that we're bound to lose on ghost guns. So, if we're going to lose on that one anyway, why not use the opportunity to reclaim other rights, fix some ambiguities (the threshold for too drunk to carry etc) currently designed to let them jam people up. so the legal climate is less jail-trappy than current law. One of the biggest problems with Day's #$%^& was it was a thousand tiny changes to language in existing code that perpetuated the inscrutability of the legal environment. Replacing the hodge-dodge of laws strewn about the code with a contiguous block of text would serve two purposes:

1) Make them easier to understand.
2) Make them easier to challenge in the courts both of law and public opinion. Day's piecemeal approach was intentionally inscrutable. They used the entire duration of the sham listening tour and longer to write it to be that way on purpose. To keep the law so tangled and complicated and contradictory that, if they want you, they get you.

The thing about compromise is; we can either compromise or be compromised. There is no circumstance under which we get FLA-style gun laws in MA. It can't happen. And, here's the part nobody wants to hear, those 'no compromise' 'free states' aren't going to stay that way. There is too much money, too much irrational fear.

The long term winning strategy is going to depend on having legal structures that make it impossible for the opposition to ignore the simple truth that licensed gun owners aren't the ones committing the crimes so more restrictions on what licensed gun owners can do doesn't solve the problem.
Click to expand...
Show me actual evidence that any of the current restrictions make Massachusetts safer from criminal use of firearms than the permitless carry states to our north?
How about dropping all restrictions on those not federally prohibited and enforcing strict punishments for committing actual crimes - that's super easy to understand.
 
pastera said:
How about just following the 2nd as explained by Heller, McDonald, Cataeno and Bruen
Why give in? You know that's why they propose shit like this, right? So that they can back it off a little and say they reached a reasonable compromise.
They current law doesn't pass constitutional scrutiny so any change proposed should be for more freedom not less

@SIGNES the response to then should be the FPC tweet response - f*** you, No!
Click to expand...
the fpc guys are correct. we've given the inches, they take feet.

time to stop giving up inches, and take back the feet that was lost. the infringements started in 1934. time to fix 90 years of "shall not be infringed".

until you have to take and pass a written test to vote, or we invent the equivalent of a live fire test that costs you money and time to do it, that's the standard.

the second amendment is not a second class right.
 
SIGNES said:
You're missing the point in 'number 11'. "Gun safes in common use" are 40 dollar Amazon items. it's not expecting the poor to go buy a three thousand dollar rifle condo.
Click to expand...
our current law covers that, while allowing bags that your language would prohibit. moreover, if your "gun safe" language is sufficiently vague that people who support gun ownership don't understand it, one can trust that 1CA judges will find in a way we don't support.

SIGNES said:
A two liner ghost gun ban would likely be written to make it illegal to even have G-code or drawings on your computer and ban modifications as Day's bill tried to. Get ahead of them.
Click to expand...
meh mr universe GIF

Let them. That has already lost. Multiple times.
www.eff.org

US Export Control Laws on Encryption Ruled Unconstitutional

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the federal government's restrictions on encryption are unconstitutional, affirming a lower court's ruling that export control over cryptographic "software and related devices and technology are in violation of the First Amendment on the grounds...
www.eff.org www.eff.org


Defense Distributed v. United States, No. 18-50811 (5th Cir. 2020) and more...

SIGNES said:
Preserve the right to assemble and modify but make them feel safe knowing you know you'll go to jail if you pass your product around like candy out of the back of a van.
Click to expand...
It's already preserved. You're not protecting anything.
 
Last edited:
SIGNES said:
Something will pass. So, the question is, what can be pitched that we can live with. I'll risk the flames again and suggest the following as possible things we could negotiate. As I have been flamed repeatedly for saying absolutism is futile, I'll take the flames again.

1) Live fire and written test components for licensing. Trainers are private and the same pool of folks currently sanctioned to train and process to be certified as a trainer. Written test is created by GOAL. Standard of live fire performance is roughly 50% of what the State Police have to meet. (I personally worry about anyone daily carrying who couldn't meet that very low bar.)
2) AWB remains so they can say they have it but it's changed to "No full auto weapons modified down to semi after initial manufacture in a manner reversible with the restoration of removed parts". 'Feature' tests and 'named weapons' prohibitions are removed except as preceding and remove the crap solely related to appearance. Follow federal minimum overall length and barrel length standards for non-tax-stamped SBR rifles.
3) SBRs, Suppressors etc. congruent with federal law (tax stamp etc.) but with an extra State penalty for possession without a stamp.
4) All private sales/transfers of firearms must be done through an FFL with 4473 background check and transaction reporting and a nominal (capped say, $30?) fee for FFL processing.
5) EFA-10 process and serialization requirement remains for 'home made (80% lowers etc.)' guns with stiff penalties for 'unregistered' after 7 days. (Assembly with a 4473'd serialized receiver does not constitute 'manufacture'.)
6) State penalties for full-auto, bump stock, forced reset mods without a federal tax stamp as a 'machine gun'.
7) Tolerate a "Red Flag" law but with stiff penalties for those who falsely make a complaint. Requirements for the return of all firearms confiscated (for up to 60 days without a renewal court proceeding where the 'flagged' can face their accuser) when a 'red flag' is invoked with stiff penalties for lost or damaged firearms held in police custody and requirements to 'male whole' within 30 days.
8) No prohibitions on 'standard capacity' magazines (30 rounds rifle, whatever ships with the model of handgun nationally). 30 Round magazines must be transported locked between home and range or hunting area. (Yeah, I know, but let 'em ban the drums and happy sticks so we can stop having the rest be a pain in the ass. I mean we do correct them from "high capacity" to "standard capacity", so, accept a real world definition of 'standard') Remove prohibitions for LTC holders to carry a pistol while hunting.
9) No more 'roster' but continued prohibitions against guns which are camouflaged to appear as something else or which are under a certain size (say, less than Glock 42/P365 sized to address the the 'Saturday night special" concern) to carry as opposed to collect or use at the range.
10) Transport in cars 'on person' for LTC holders. or in a locked case/out of view trunk and unloaded.
11) Storage in a gun safe of types in 'common use' or in a 'room vault' dedicated to the purpose and only readily accessible but he license holder(s) in the household when the licensee is not at home with the firearm with a mandate to report all lost or stolen firearms. Criminal penalty for gun owners when children in the home gain access to firearms that were not stored properly.
12) Stiffer penalties for possession without a permit, very stiff ones for carrying without a permit.
13) Requirements for licensing turnaround times and renewals with actual teeth so it happens in a consistent and timely manner.
14) Allow 'no guns permitted' signs to carry the force of law with, say, a thousand dollar fine for violation if signage was clearly posted but no loss ior suspension of license for a first offense.
15) Codify blood alcohol level to match that for DUI for carrying while intoxicated.
16) Minimum age for an LTC of 21 except where an employer requires carry.
17) Ban "open carry" except while hunting.


Maybe you hate some or all of these, maybe you too could live with them but, start being ready to think of some bone you can throw so that can still say "MA has some of the strongest gun safety laws in the country' without 'peppering your angus' with those 'strong laws'.

EDIT: The above would pass a Heller/Bruen test btw.
Click to expand...
WTF [angry]
I have a better idea, make the laws in MA mirror the laws in NH, after all its about safety and NH has been rated consistently in the top 3 safest states in the US.

I posted what I thought should replace this bill, but I won't dupe myself here.

Your shit doesn't even eliminate suitability or mandate prosecution and sentencing for illegal possession. You mention penalties for illegal possession but it's already "mandatory" 1 year. Meaningless when they done prosecute.,
 
SIGNES said:
You're missing the point in 'number 11'. "Gun safes in common use" are 40 dollar Amazon items. it's not expecting the poor to go buy a three thousand dollar rifle condo.

The 'room vault' portion was to correct Day's efforts to make the 'locked room" stuff Day's version prohibited clarified in a way that those (including FFLs) who currently store outside of a safe but securely can continue to do so.

A two liner ghost gun ban would likely be written to make it illegal to even have G-code or drawings on your computer and ban modifications as Day's bill tried to. Get ahead of them. Preserve the right to assemble and modify but make them feel safe knowing you know you'll go to jail if you pass your product around like candy out of the back of a van. Remember these people don't have the slightest idea why a typical law abiding gun owner would ever swap out an upper or change a grip frame. Get ahead of them to let them address their real concern (more guns they can't trace in the hands of the unlicensed) in a way that doesn't screw everyone.
Click to expand...
Do gun safes actually increase safety?
Can you cite studies where a state went to safe storage and saw a statistically significant drop in gun theft and childhood (<15 YO) accidents?
Can you cite data that shows the ability to trace a firearm solves a significant number of crimes that wouldn't otherwise be solved or allows stolen items to be returned?

As far as "go to jail if you pass your product around like candy out of the back of a van" - Already a federal crime. Want to allow personal transfers with background checks?
Update the system to allow a dual entry portal where the buyer can enter their data and receive a one time QR code that the seller can use along with the buyers ID to verify. No info on what was transferred only a record that the seller can show that they verified the buyer was not a PP.

By accepting the lie about why they are trying to implement these restrictions, you are part of the problem.
For any new law one must ask what is the actual problem the law is trying to fix and how does the bills language effect that fix. If the bill's action on the problem is not immediately apparent and narrowly tailored to be barely enough to effect that change then the law is overbearing.
 
SIGNES said:
Something will pass. So, the question is, what can be pitched that we can live with. I'll risk the flames again and suggest the following as possible things we could negotiate. As I have been flamed repeatedly for saying absolutism is futile, I'll take the flames again.

1) Live fire and written test components for licensing. Trainers are private and the same pool of folks currently sanctioned to train and process to be certified as a trainer. Written test is created by GOAL. Standard of live fire performance is roughly 50% of what the State Police have to meet. (I personally worry about anyone daily carrying who couldn't meet that very low bar.)
2) AWB remains so they can say they have it but it's changed to "No full auto weapons modified down to semi after initial manufacture in a manner reversible with the restoration of removed parts". 'Feature' tests and 'named weapons' prohibitions are removed except as preceding and remove the crap solely related to appearance. Follow federal minimum overall length and barrel length standards for non-tax-stamped SBR rifles.
3) SBRs, Suppressors etc. congruent with federal law (tax stamp etc.) but with an extra State penalty for possession without a stamp.
4) All private sales/transfers of firearms must be done through an FFL with 4473 background check and transaction reporting and a nominal (capped say, $30?) fee for FFL processing.
5) EFA-10 process and serialization requirement remains for 'home made (80% lowers etc.)' guns with stiff penalties for 'unregistered' after 7 days. (Assembly with a 4473'd serialized receiver does not constitute 'manufacture'.)
6) State penalties for full-auto, bump stock, forced reset mods without a federal tax stamp as a 'machine gun'.
7) Tolerate a "Red Flag" law but with stiff penalties for those who falsely make a complaint. Requirements for the return of all firearms confiscated (for up to 60 days without a renewal court proceeding where the 'flagged' can face their accuser) when a 'red flag' is invoked with stiff penalties for lost or damaged firearms held in police custody and requirements to 'male whole' within 30 days.
8) No prohibitions on 'standard capacity' magazines (30 rounds rifle, whatever ships with the model of handgun nationally). 30 Round magazines must be transported locked between home and range or hunting area. (Yeah, I know, but let 'em ban the drums and happy sticks so we can stop having the rest be a pain in the ass. I mean we do correct them from "high capacity" to "standard capacity", so, accept a real world definition of 'standard') Remove prohibitions for LTC holders to carry a pistol while hunting.
9) No more 'roster' but continued prohibitions against guns which are camouflaged to appear as something else or which are under a certain size (say, less than Glock 42/P365 sized to address the the 'Saturday night special" concern) to carry as opposed to collect or use at the range.
10) Transport in cars 'on person' for LTC holders. or in a locked case/out of view trunk and unloaded.
11) Storage in a gun safe of types in 'common use' or in a 'room vault' dedicated to the purpose and only readily accessible but he license holder(s) in the household when the licensee is not at home with the firearm with a mandate to report all lost or stolen firearms. Criminal penalty for gun owners when children in the home gain access to firearms that were not stored properly.
12) Stiffer penalties for possession without a permit, very stiff ones for carrying without a permit.
13) Requirements for licensing turnaround times and renewals with actual teeth so it happens in a consistent and timely manner.
14) Allow 'no guns permitted' signs to carry the force of law with, say, a thousand dollar fine for violation if signage was clearly posted but no loss ior suspension of license for a first offense.
15) Codify blood alcohol level to match that for DUI for carrying while intoxicated.
16) Minimum age for an LTC of 21 except where an employer requires carry.
17) Ban "open carry" except while hunting.


Maybe you hate some or all of these, maybe you too could live with them but, start being ready to think of some bone you can throw so that can still say "MA has some of the strongest gun safety laws in the country' without 'peppering your angus' with those 'strong laws'.

EDIT: The above would pass a Heller/Bruen test btw.
Click to expand...

None of that would pass a Heller or Bruen test, because some courts are still applying varying levels of scrutiny, which is what left wing judges continue to do and SCOTUS said "Two steps is one step too many". All of the historical record anyone needs to understand is in DC v Heller. All of the analysis and history is there. SCOTUS did all of the work already and all of the historical analysis can be used by future decisions. Left wing judges simply ignore it all and rule based on other things. Right now the current legal trickery being used by judges is that only "arms used in self defense are protected arms, therefore handguns are protected but AR15s are not" and using this logic to get around Heller by applying pseudo-scrutiny and adding the word "used in self defense" even though Heller distinctly says, if the conduct is presumed lawful then it is lawful. No extra steps.

The difference between today and say 2 years ago is that more people know exactly what are in the scotus decisions and exactly how these cases should be determined.

If you think you can prove that your bullet points can be upheld then please provide the history, text and tradition. All I see is just about every circuit court in the US within blue states are going back to slavery laws in the years before the civil war that banned black people from owning guns and also banned sale and trade of guns with indians. Tell me how you can pass any of this through that as a valid legal argument. "We can ban AR15s because 175 years ago we banned the sale and fur trading of fur for arms with Indian tribes that were not deemed friendly". The case law arguments are literally dripping with 19th century racism. This is the hill that the left wants to die and I say let em. Lawyers in these cases have to preference their arguments with "Your honor we're not racists, but....". That's real tangible evidence in 2023 of where the left is. F*ck these people.

What we have today is a court system where the left simply ignores scotus and writes outrageous legal opinions based on logic that is in direct defiance of Heller/McDonald/Bruen/Caetano. They know the case will get struck down but they simply are slow walking the cases in order to block them from hitting scotus until some future date when they have a crack at having a scotus majority.

All of this anti-gun nonsense will end (a) on the day that democrats get knocked off of their perches or (b) when Michael Bloomberg kicks the bucket and stops sending them money.
 
SIGNES said:
Every single item in the Bill of Rights has been found by legal precedent and upheld stature to have some limits. Every last one. Some are even objectively reasonable, many are absolute bullshit we live with nonetheless.

My religious freedom doesn't grant me the right to eat babies. My freedom to assemble doesn't grant me the right to get five hundred of my besties and have a picnic in the middle of Rt 128 etc. etc,
Click to expand...

You position here fails the liberty test. You have the right to do whatever you want as long as you aren't harming others or preventing them from exercising their rights. Both of your examples are infringements on the basic rights of others.
 
pastera said:
Show me actual evidence that any of the current restrictions make Massachusetts safer from criminal use of firearms than the permitless carry states to our north?
How about dropping all restrictions on those not federally prohibited and enforcing strict punishments for committing actual crimes - that's super easy to understand.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence. (Well, you could argue that Maine, VT and New Hampshire are demographically different and much lower density and that's why their crime levels are lower but that's not the point.) They are also avoiding any conversations about evidence now (licensed owners commit less crime, we already have background checks) because the evidence doesn't fit their narrative.

The problem is, there will be a new bill. It will further restrict our rights. it will pass. Some of what passes may get overturned by the courts in 3 years but even that is no sure bet because the courts are subject to change. So help them write a bill that makes them feel better and include in that bill things that solve problems for us or that we can live with (DUI blood alcohol level rather than craziness we see about "not in a location that makes X% of their revenue selling alcohol").

Tantruming 'But mah rights!' while correct doesn't win.
 
SIGNES said:
There is no evidence. (Well, you could argue that Maine, VT and New Hampshire are demographically different and much lower density and that's why their crime levels are lower but that's not the point.) They are also avoiding any conversations about evidence now (licensed owners commit less crime, we already have background checks) because the evidence doesn't fit their narrative.

The problem is, there will be a new bill. It will further restrict our rights. it will pass. Some of what passes may get overturned by the courts in 3 years but even that is no sure bet because the courts are subject to change. So help them write a bill that makes them feel better and include in that bill things that solve problems for us or that we can live with (DUI blood alcohol level rather than craziness we see about "not in a location that makes X% of their revenue selling alcohol").

Tantruming 'But mah rights!' while correct doesn't win.
Click to expand...

If you think that we can throw the other side a "bone" and they'll sit back and agree that we're finally done compromising, you are one of the most naive people I think I've ever come across.

They will not rest unlit you are completely disarmed. Period. Why would you be a voluntary party to that?
 
SIGNES said:
Every single item in the Bill of Rights has been found by legal precedent and upheld stature to have some limits. Every last one. Some are even objectively reasonable, many are absolute bullshit we live with nonetheless.

My religious freedom doesn't grant me the right to eat babies. My freedom to assemble doesn't grant me the right to get five hundred of my besties and have a picnic in the middle of Rt 128 etc. etc,
Click to expand...
I for one am glad to see you are refraining from eating babies even tho your religion requires it.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
None of that would pass a Heller or Bruen test, because some courts are still applying varying levels of scrutiny, which is what left wing judges continue to do and SCOTUS said "Two steps is one step too many". All of the historical record anyone needs to understand is in DC v Heller. All of the analysis and history is there. SCOTUS did all of the work already and all of the historical analysis can be used by future decisions. Left wing judges simply ignore it all and rule based on other things. Right now the current legal trickery being used by judges is that only "arms used in self defense are protected arms, therefore handguns are protected but AR15s are not" and using this logic to get around Heller by applying pseudo-scrutiny and adding the word "used in self defense" even though Heller distinctly says, if the conduct is presumed lawful then it is lawful. No extra steps.

The difference between today and say 2 years ago is that more people know exactly what are in the scotus decisions and exactly how these cases should be determined.

If you think you can prove that your bullet points can be upheld then please provide the history, text and tradition. All I see is just about every circuit court in the US within blue states are going back to slavery laws in the years before the civil war that banned black people from owning guns and also banned sale and trade of guns with indians. Tell me how you can pass any of this through that as a valid legal argument.

What we have today is a court system where the left simply ignores scotus and writes outrageous legal opinions based on logic that is in direct defiance of Heller/McDonald/Bruen/Caetano. They know the case will get struck down but they simply are slow walking the cases in order to block them from hitting scotus until some future date when they have a crack at having a scotus majority.

All of this anti-gun nonsense will end (a) on the day that democrats get knocked off of their perches or (b) when Michael Bloomberg kicks the bucket and stops sending them money.
Click to expand...
We keep skipping Miller in this list.

If we combine Bruen with Miller, nothing stands.
 
SIGNES said:
It's as insane as it sounds but you're missing the point. The people with the power to @#$%^ us over feeling unsafe will $%^&* us all the harder.
Click to expand...

No, my friend, YOU are missing the point.

I don't know what kind of weird Stockholm Syndrome fetish you have going on, but you have got to drop this asinine idea that giving something to your aggressors will satisfy them and make them leave you alone.

They won't be satisfied until you don't exist. They have made this plainly clear.
 
Last edited:
pastera said:
Want to compromise?
Three levels of permitting

Cary C: Permitless restricted
  • 21
  • Not Prohibited
  • Duty to inform
  • no carry in sensitive places
Carry B: Basic LTC
  • 21
  • Not prohibited
  • No duty to inform
  • Training requirement same as current
  • no carry in sensitive places
Carry A: Enhanced LTC
  • 21
  • Not prohibited
  • No duty to inform
  • Enhanced training - live fire (police qual), Use of force (civilian), Defensive use in crowds, etc
  • No carry restriction (except active exclusion with metal detectors)
  • No restrictions on types of firearms (no lists, no AWB, no mag restrictions, silencers and MGs for all)
Click to expand...

LTC X - It doesn't exist, no license is necessary just freely exercise your right any way you wish.
 

Similar threads

Legislative push starts to repeal Massachusetts gun law
2 3
Replies
63
Views
2K
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
New and “improved” gun laws. Hahaha
3 4 5
Replies
127
Views
2K
Randy Lahey
Randy Lahey
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
533
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Back
Top Bottom