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

AJK129 said:
Only with your attitude, not ours
Click to expand...

He’s not wrong though. When you’re an ultra-minority in a democracy, you can’t make demands, you can just politely ask for anal lube.

Assuming violence is off the table, plan on sacrificing, or losing, “ghost guns” when this shit comes back around in Fall. Or put your faith in the courts.
 
not connected to this part of the thread, but i'm starting to add this to my communications. while republicans hold the edge, they are by no means alone, and non-traditional owners are increasing. *this* is what the antis are afraid of.


gun ownership in united states.PNG
 
Mesatchornug said:
We keep skipping Miller in this list.

If we combine Bruen with Miller, nothing stands.
Click to expand...

Interestingly the FPC used the actual congressional record from 1932 when the NFA was passed as a legal brief in one of the assault weapon cases and congress way back then even said, banning weapons would not fly and that was as late as 1932 and a predominantly democratic congress.

Gun control is a product of institutional racism and that seems to be the 'institution' that the left wants to preserve very badly.
 
Grendizer138 said:
He’s not wrong though. When you’re an ultra-minority in a democracy, you can’t make demands, you can just politely ask for anal lube.

Assuming violence is off the table, plan on sacrificing, or losing, “ghost guns” when this shit comes back around in Fall. Or put your faith in the courts.
Click to expand...

I can recognize that I will probably be boned by the majority, but that doesn't mean I have to lay back and spread my legs.

The common misconception here is that we can get the other side to not bone us quite so hard, if only we agree to give them something in return.

If there's anyone who really believes that they are willing to "compromise", I invite them to take a look at the legislation that is the subject of this thread.
 
Yazz said:
Lets talk about this for real.
So Maura do you want to stop Gun violence? This is for the whole United States.
In 2019, there were 14,414 firearm homicides.

  • 84% of gun homicide victims were male.
  • Black males aged 15-34 had a gun homicide rate nearly 17 times higher than white (non Latino) males of the same age group.
  • 37% of gun homicide victims were Black teens and men between the ages of 15-34 – although they make up only 2% of the U.S. population.
  • Massachusetts had the lowest firearm homicide rate, while Mississippi had the highest.
We don't need anymore gun laws.
We need stronger family values.

efsgv.org

New CDC Data Reveals Persistently High Rates of U.S. Gun Deaths

The overall gun death rate in the U.S. increased 17% from 2010 to 2019, according to newly-released data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A joint review of CDC data by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and sister organization Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence found...
efsgv.org efsgv.org
Click to expand...
This proves exactly what we we know, this isn't about stopping gun violence, your stats clearly show that.
 
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.
Click to expand...
So you are proposing feel good emotion based restrictions just to appease the unappeasable?

SIGNES said:
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.
Click to expand...
That they will try something is not a reason to give up anything.
As far as the courts, we want to have clean hands on any bill passed. If 2A proponents help craft a bill then it will be exponentially harder to argue in court that it is an infringement.
Also, the more egregious the bill the better the chance of an immediate injunction. If we help craft the bill and then support it then the chance of an injunction rapidly approaches zero.
SIGNES said:
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...
So it's a win to have a rawdog train run on you as long as the last guy gives you a half hearted reach around?

The correct way to address carry while intoxicated is to punish any crimes committed - you can own a car while drunk, you can push it down the street while drunk. What you can't do is operate while drunk because it is the operation that places others at objectively unacceptable risk.
A firearm in the holster is not in operation. Add an enhanced punishment for firearms crimes committed while intoxicated and that all that's necessary.
 
Goliathan said:
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?
Click to expand...
Because @SIGNES was one of them people already scrambling to comply. He had his pants down just waiting on that government's HD.4420.
 
Goliathan said:
I can recognize that I will probably be boned by the majority, but that doesn't mean I have to lay back and spread my legs.

The common misconception here is that we can get the other side to not bone us quite so hard, if only we agree to give them something in return.

If there's anyone who really believes that they are willing to "compromise", I invite them to take a look at the legislation that is the subject of this thread.
Click to expand...
Sure. But how do you plan on resisting if you’re playing by their rules? I’m not going to pay a bit of attention to it, so don’t ask me.

When there was a public fervor to ban bump stocks, Linsky almost got a magazine ban through as part of the bumpstock ban bill. Someone will have to dig up the details, but another rep presented a clean bumpstock ban bill. I can’t remember the details, but we got the anal lube.

I don’t know, dude. I guess I’m just seeing a little too much celebration here for something that’s just simply delayed, and I know the CoP won’t oppose a “ghost gun” bill like they did HD4420.
 
Grendizer138 said:
He’s not wrong though. When you’re an ultra-minority in a democracy, you can’t make demands, you can just politely ask for anal lube.

Assuming violence is off the table, plan on sacrificing, or losing, “ghost guns” when this shit comes back around in Fall. Or put your faith in the courts.
Click to expand...
sad fact is you're probably right. but how about making it a real compromise? give us something if you're taking unserialized home-made. put some teeth in the 40 day deadline, eliminate suitability, get rid of all approved handgun lists, mandate the use of the standard application form and process with no additional requirements.
 
Goliathan said:
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?
Click to expand...
I think GOAL can help write a bill that we can live with that may actually fix some of the crap we live with now.

I think we're headed for being involuntarily party to worse if we don't get ahead of it.
 
Pushing age 15 in 1968, but already being a history buff, the 1968 gun control act was initially intended to come after ALL firearms. The NRA at that time was not a political action group and did little lobbying. All that changed after 1968.

I am not sure how many of you realize how close we came to a complete ban in 1968.

The conditions were ripe for a perfect storm.

JFK
MLK
RFK

SCOTUS in 1968 was likely the most Liberal Court in our history.

The House and the Senate were both Democrat.

LBJ was President and was signing any and every Liberal Policy that was put on his desk.

We came close folks, real close.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."--George Santayana



Gun Control Act of 1968 | Encyclopedia.com

Gun Control Act of 1968 Keith Rollins Eakins Source for information on Gun Control Act of 1968: Major Acts of Congress dictionary.
www.encyclopedia.com www.encyclopedia.com
 
If we are going to go the alternate bill route, we need to get ahead of this. GOAL should work with the very few supportive Reps and create a bill, not an amendment or argument to the current bill but a completely new bill.
Get it filed, push it forward, after all it won't need to be re-written like 4420 does. They get to "do something" but we control the process, 4420 become unnecessary and is dropped.
 
42! said:
If we are going to go the alternate bill route, we need to get ahead of this. GOAL should work with the very few supportive Reps and create a bill, not an amendment or argument to the current bill but a completely new bill.
Get it filed, push it forward, after all it won't need to be re-written like 4420 does. They get to "do something" but we control the process, 4420 become unnecessary and is dropped.
Click to expand...
Correct. But there’s no appetite for this at all.
 
VetteGirlMA said:
LTC X - It doesn't exist, no license is necessary just freely exercise your right any way you wish.
Click to expand...
Agree with your point.
However, by promoting a strict interpretation of the Text, History and Tradition of the 2nd we lock ourselves into both the operative and prefatory clauses.
And the prefatory clause allows for a requirement to be "well regulated" to be enacted - that means SCOTUS will very likely find training requirements for public carry to be constitutional.
That is the place to get in early, establish ourselves as the subject matter experts and set objective, testable standards for levels of training.
 
Grendizer138 said:
Correct. But there’s no appetite for this at all.
Click to expand...
reality is often not appetizing

Oh, add this to what should be in our bill. Safety training for the children. Bring the Eddie Eagle program back into the schools. There was study posted that supports this from a safety perspective and doesn't the NRA offer it for free. And we can argue that if it's about safety why aren't we doing this?
 
42! said:
If we are going to go the alternate bill route, we need to get ahead of this. GOAL should work with the very few supportive Reps and create a bill, not an amendment or argument to the current bill but a completely new bill.
Get it filed, push it forward, after all it won't need to be re-written like 4420 does. They get to "do something" but we control the process, 4420 become unnecessary and is dropped.
Click to expand...
Yep! Exactly what I am advocating.
 
pastera said:
Agree with your point.
However, by promoting a strict interpretation of the Text, History and Tradition of the 2nd we lock ourselves into both the operative and prefatory clauses.
And the prefatory clause allows for a requirement to be "well regulated" to be enacted - that means SCOTUS will very likely find training requirements for public carry to be constitutional.
That is the place to get in early, establish ourselves as the subject matter experts and set objective, testable standards for levels of training.
Click to expand...

That line of thinking is also discarded in Heller as well. The well regulated referred to soldiers under the command of the government...


" Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia."

Well regulated only applies to service to the government. An unorganized militia does not need to be well regulated.
 

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
864
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Misdemeanor Assault and Battery Conviction Massachusetts 1994
Replies
22
Views
533
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Back
Top Bottom