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

[SteelShooter]

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.

Are we still debating that 'well regulated' might mean 'the people' instead of the militia and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed "is the same as militia?

 

[Grendizer138]

GOAL - 2023 - 2024 Legislation

www.goal.org

I think he meant a replacement for 4420 that sacrifices “ghost guns” in return for stuff we want like removing suitability, legalizing suppressors, etc. There’s no appetite for that because it’s actual “compromise”.

 

[42!]

Yep! Exactly what I am advocating.

No, what you suggest is complete surrender.
Do some searching and compair what I suggested to what you did.

 

[Mesatchornug]

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.

I suppose that depends if we consider daily carry as part of militia duty. That makes for an interesting puzzle...

 

[Goliathan]

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.

Adhering to a textual interpretation doesn't mean we're required to interpret the text itself any differently. The meaning of the words are the same, regardless of the standard.

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose." - Scalia in Heller

 

[freddieMA]

Is SIGNES really Representative Day?

no, i don't think he is.

he's on a different evolutionary path is all.

technical people out there know this situation very well: when you're deep into a problem trying to fix a complicated design, and the corner cases start biting you causing more problems, and you realize it would be better to start with first principles with a clean sheet of paper and a new approach to the problem.

what we have doesn't work. we know the proposal has nothing to do with the problem. making the design more complicated only serves the design, possibly the designers, not the outcome.

 

[SIGNES]

No, what you suggest is complete surrender.
Do some searching and compair what I suggested to what you did.

Funny you call what I suggested surrender while others noted (correctly) that most of what I proposed was already law.

 

[Mesatchornug]

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?

I'm not only onboard - I offered to Day (at the Framingham meeting) that I'd personally coordinate instructors; I just need support from the state. Lest we forget:

General Law - Part I, Title II, Chapter 6, Section 15ZZZ

malegislature.gov

Section 15ZZZ. The governor shall annually issue a proclamation setting apart the first week of October as Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Week and recommending that said week be observed in an appropriate manner by the people.

 

[Chappy7]

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.

Not missing the point. If you don't stand your ground and don't fight back then they will f@(k us all the harder.

Anything you're proposing is BOHICA

 

[pastera]

We keep skipping Miller in this list.

If we combine Bruen with Miller, nothing stands.

Be careful on Miller - Heller sets the stage on Pg 50 to discount Miller

JUSTICE STEVENS claims, post, at 42, that the opinion reached its conclusion “[a]fter reviewing many of the same sources that are discussed at greater length by the Court today.” Not many, which was not entirely the Court’s fault. The respondent made no appearance in the case, neither filing a brief nor appearing at oral argument; the Court heard from no one but the Government (reason enough, one would think, not to make that case the beginning and the end of this Court’s consideration of the Second Amendment).

 

[Mesatchornug]

Funny you call what I suggested surrender while others noted (correctly) that most of what I proposed was already law.

Which is the opposite of compromise.

Let's reinforce existing, bad laws, while creating new, worse ones.

 

[Goliathan]

I think he meant a replacement for 4420 that sacrifices “ghost guns” in return for stuff we want like removing suitability, legalizing suppressors, etc. There’s no appetite for that because it’s actual “compromise”.

"I'd like to please give up my ability to do what has been tradition since before the founding of this country, and in exchange I beg the Crown's permission to do what is already constitutionally-protected and perfectly normal in most other states."

This world, where "actual compromise" means simply getting back something that was unilaterally taken away in a previous "compromise."

 

[Mesatchornug]

Be careful on Miller - Heller sets the stage on Pg 50 to discount Miller

It's definitely tricky precedent.

At the same time, despite the failure to appear on the part of the Miller (what with being dead and all) their finding hinged on the idea that firearms appropriate for militia service must be protected.

 

[Spartan65]

Which is the opposite of compromise.

Let's reinforce existing, bad laws, while creating new, worse ones.

Don’t feed the troll.

 

[pastera]

Adhering to a textual interpretation doesn't mean we're required to interpret the text itself any differently. The meaning of the words are the same, regardless of the standard.

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose." - Scalia in Heller

Textual interpretation also enforces that there aren't extraneous words in the text.
It will be found that the prefatory clause defines that requiring proper regulation (training) is not a historical infringement.

 

[Grendizer138]

"I'd like to please give up my ability to do what has been tradition since before the founding of this country, and in exchange I beg the Crown's permission to do what is already constitutionally-protected and perfectly normal in most other states."

This world, where "actual compromise" means simply getting back something that was unilaterally taken away in a previous "compromise."

View attachment 778281

Lol. Interesting meme to make your argument.

Very accurate though.

 

[pastera]

I suppose that depends if we consider daily carry as part of militia duty. That makes for an interesting puzzle...

But that's the crux..
We are the militia by the text, history and tradition.
The militia in order to be effective, must be well trained and disciplined as described by the prefatory clause.

However, this historical tradition of training is demonstrably satisfied by programs like appleseed and CMP marksmanship programs.

 

[SIGNES]

Which is the opposite of compromise.

Let's reinforce existing, bad laws, while creating new, worse ones.

Who's gonna write the laws? People with some interest in preservation of rights like GOAL or people who think Glocks are double secret probation dangerous because they're immune to metal detectors? The people currently in power in MA who will stay in power in MA know nothing about firearms. Know nothing about the impact on lawful owners/users when they write legislation. Know nothing about the complete lack of reduction in crime the laws they write will provide.

More laws are coming. The courts will not save us in a timely manner. (Look at what's happening in Washington State, hell, look at the cases filed here.) The courts current leanings are not permanent so the long run doesn't look good.

Pass a bill that makes them feel better. Let them declare victory while keeping, or even reclaiming our rights. Pragmatism is the only strategy with any traction.

 

[pastera]

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.

And that's where I believe the court will split the baby

While I agree that the prefatory clause is purely explanatory, the courts will likely cite articles from gun groups expounding on their history of training and use that as a showing of tradition (even though it isn't contemporary with the founding)

 

[pastera]

Who's gonna write the laws? People with some interest in preservation of rights like GOAL or people who think Glocks are double secret probation dangerous because they're immune to metal detectors? The people currently in power in MA who will stay in power in MA know nothing about firearms. Know nothing about the impact on lawful owners/users when they write legislation. Know nothing about the complete lack of reduction in crime the laws they write will provide.

More laws are coming. The courts will not save us in a timely manner. (Look at what's happening in Washington State, hell, look at the cases filed here.) The courts current leanings are not permanent so the long run doesn't look good.

Pass a bill that makes them feel better. Let them declare victory while keeping, or even reclaiming our rights. Pragmatism is the only strategy with any traction.

Give them nothing.

 

[Junior314]

I suppose that depends if we consider daily carry as part of militia duty. That makes for an interesting puzzle...

I certainly do.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Who's gonna write the laws? People with some interest in preservation of rights like GOAL or people who think Glocks are double secret probation dangerous because they're immune to metal detectors? The people currently in power in MA who will stay in power in MA know nothing about firearms. Know nothing about the impact on awful owners/users when they write legislation. Know nothing about the complete lack of reduction in crime the laws they write will provide.

More laws are coming. The courts will not save us in a timely manner. (Look at what's happening in Washington State, hell, look at the cases filed here.) The courts current leanings are not permanent so the long run doesn't look good.

Pass a bill that makes them feel better. Let them declare victory while keeping, or even reclaiming our rights. Pragmatism is the only strategy with any traction.

But you're proposing bad laws.

In part because you don't actually support gun ownership (see: your willingness to donate things that are not machine guns as MGs, and suppressors). You only support your version of gun ownership.

You're not helping. In fact, you're engaging in consensus cracking and something awfully close to concern trolling. I'm reminded of a cliché my mother loves too much: with friends like you...

 

[Mesatchornug]

I certainly do.

My knee-jerk is to see it reversed, but can't strongly argue either side.

Or, to clarify - I'd argue that the militia might have a responsibility to carry daily, but those who carry daily aren't required to act as part of the militia...if that makes sense.

 

[OnTheRoad]

I've mentioned it before but it's getting to be a pretty long discussion and it bears repeating.

What the Left calls a "compromise" today, they will call a "loophole" tomorrow.

 

[pastera]

It's definitely tricky precedent.

At the same time, despite the failure to appear on the part of the Miller (what with being dead and all) their finding hinged on the idea that firearms appropriate for militia service must be protected.

And that is the central point as to why Miller must be discounted from the governments point of view.
If bearable arms in common use appropriate for militia service (National Guard) are the standard then select fire weapons ABSOLUTELY MUST BE LEGAL.

Meet the ‘Smuzzle,’ the Army’s new hybrid suppressor that reduces sound, recoil and flash

The "Smuzzle" is a hybrid suppressor and muzzle brake.

www.armytimes.com

Army Announces 2 New Rifles for Close-Combat Soldiers

The Army recently awarded a contract for two new soldier weapons: the XM5 rifle and the XM250 automatic rifle, which both will use the new 6.8 mm common cartridge family of ammunition and a new fire

www.defense.gov

 

[Mesatchornug]

And that is the central point as to why Miller must be discounted from the governments point of view.
If bearable arms in common use appropriate for militia service (National Guard) are the standard then select fire weapons ABSOLUTELY MUST BE LEGAL.

Meet the ‘Smuzzle,’ the Army’s new hybrid suppressor that reduces sound, recoil and flash

The "Smuzzle" is a hybrid suppressor and muzzle brake.

www.armytimes.com

Army Announces 2 New Rifles for Close-Combat Soldiers

The Army recently awarded a contract for two new soldier weapons: the XM5 rifle and the XM250 automatic rifle, which both will use the new 6.8 mm common cartridge family of ammunition and a new fire

www.defense.gov

and, of course, why we need to beat that drum.

Miller, Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen.

Hell, let me figure out how to use Obergefell to jam in some Equal Protection, and I'll do it.

 

[alan226]

Who's gonna write the laws? People with some interest in preservation of rights like GOAL or people who think Glocks are double secret probation dangerous because they're immune to metal detectors? The people currently in power in MA who will stay in power in MA know nothing about firearms. Know nothing about the impact on lawful owners/users when they write legislation. Know nothing about the complete lack of reduction in crime the laws they write will provide.

More laws are coming. The courts will not save us in a timely manner. (Look at what's happening in Washington State, hell, look at the cases filed here.) The courts current leanings are not permanent so the long run doesn't look good.

Pass a bill that makes them feel better. Let them declare victory while keeping, or even reclaiming our rights. Pragmatism is the only strategy with any traction.

Anythng that makes them "feel" better would do zero to "reclaiming" our rights.

Again, we will be doing the dance every year until WE have nothing left to compromise with.


Non starter....

 

[SgtHal75]

Wow. Speak for yourself, man. The number of white-collar addicts who hold down steady professional jobs and still go out to score on street corners would apparently blow your mind. Just because they don't "act like junkies" when you happen to be interacting with them means nothing.

I've known some addicts, both drug- and alcohol-, who were incredibly functional adults in their daily life. They're out there, whether you buy it or not.

I wired a methodone clinic years ago out in Framingham. They had a security guard watching the parking lot in the mornings when everyone would come and get their shot/drink. There were a lot of nice cars, REALLY nice cars that would pull up and they wanted to make sure they were not broken into or vandalized. We asked the security guard who drives all those nice rides. He said it’s all the doctors, lawyers and heavy hitters that work in Boston that don’t want to be seen going into a methadone clinic in Boston. They were there for thier shot then into work in the city they went.

Also, years ago I was at a party through a friend of a friend. After being there for about 5 minutes I popped smoke because they broke out the lines and pills. Not my scene at all. The guy who owned the really nice place and supplied the gear was a neuro surgeon at mass general.. no shit.

If anybody thinks that the only druggies are the bums on the T….they are sorely mistaken. It just might be the guy operating on you.

 

[bigbravehog]

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.

and the Militia is EVERYONE

 

[Broc Tuah]

A lot of you folks are forgetting there are intermediate courts.

I get it: 1st circuit sucks. But they do understand judicial review, and as time passes Bruen becomes more binding. Then there are appellate levels that won't side with 1st circuit. It might not even have to get to SCOTUS if enough appeals go the same way nationwide and MA decides to slink away.

So, you are saying it might take 20 years instead of 10?