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

[Mesatchornug]

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

just Two More Weeks.

 

[PappyM3]

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.

That’s not the take away on “regulated”.

Regulated just means well equipped and well trained, in good working order. Not being in service to the government.

Look at any of the militia documentation from back then. Militia members (restricted to white adult males back then, but essentially just “the people”) were to train and maintain their kit. That is what being well regulated meant.

At the very core of the 2nd amendment, people should have an AR(realistically an M4), a full combat load of magazines and ammo, and attend carbine courses and rehearse battle drills with others.

 

[DW357]

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.

Damn that's wild. Though I'm not shocked to hear that either.

 

[SIGNES]

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...

The many hours I spent in the real world opposing HD4420 wasn't done to male you my friend and I don't expect you to give me brownie points for it. All I expect is that those people on this board who want to keep their rights do more than post here to try and keep them. I can, and will, continue to say that veiled threats of violence are not only unacceptable but often as comic as they are self destructive.

I can, and will continue to suggest that there are ways to win more than we lose. When Oprah doesn't say "And you get a machine gun and you get a machine gun" on morning TV but we're instead left with wooden stock bolt actions at best, I will not enjoy having been right nearly enough to offset the seizure of my guns.

There is absolutely no universe where anyone can wander into Home Depot buy a SAW the same way they can pick up a pair of pliers. Once you acknowledge that absolute fact, then you're already compromising so why not be effective about it?

 

[PappyM3]

Yep! Exactly what I am advocating.

What you’re advocating for is to normalize their demands. You’re shifting what is acceptable to ban in their mind and they’ll be back later with another shift in what is “common sense”.

No more. The gun community has been following your model for decades and it got us nowhere but ever increasing oppression.

They want to propose such an insane omnibus bill? Go for it. They’re showing their true intent and the absurdity of it only makes court challenges easier and non-compliance more acceptable.

 

[sschevy]

No.

I had a co-worker at a previous gig ask, "How come gun people don't want to compromise?"

I said, "If I tell you, 'give me $100 or I'll beat the crap out of you,' then roll the monetary demand back to $50, is that a compromise? No, it's just less extortion. It's only a compromise if both sides give up something."


I was thinking about going down the list, item by item, but decided "No" was easier.

I answered that question once with

“Gun owners have been “compromising” since 1934 and we’ve gotten exactly nothing in return since then”

I got a solid 5 minute blank stare before she walked away angry and speechless

 

[Mesatchornug]

The many hours I spent in the real world opposing HD4420 wasn't done to male you my friend and I don't expect you to give me brownie points for it.

You seem to assume you're the only one. I'm grateful you fought 4420. Telling us it's for our own good to restrict our rights "just a little" isn't forgiven. We can celebrate good things and damn band ones.

I can, and will, continue to say that veiled threats of violence are not only unacceptable but often as comic as they are self destructive.

What threats? If that's a generic comment, sure, but if you're talking about me? Seriously, seek counseling.

I can, and will continue to suggest that there are ways to win more than we lose.

I agree. It's just that the ideas you keep presenting don't seem to fall in that category.

There is absolutely no universe where anyone can wander into Home Depot buy a SAW the same way they can pick up a pair of pliers. Once you acknowledge that absolute fact, then you're already compromising so why not be effective about it?

Home Depot would only have pot metal, imported SAWs.

People can buy SAWs today. It's not yet at the local hardware store again, but I don't subscribe to your attitude that it can't be in the future.

 

[Dressed to Kill]

just Two More Weeks.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

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

This is one thing I could never wrap my brain around in the Us v Miller case is the fact that Miller had already died in prison before his case made it to the supreme court so how could it not be moot by that point unless the prevailing feeling is that there was still a controversy.

But at this point I part ways with Miller because the reasoning of what constituted 'dangerous and unusual' in Miller is that 'If the military doesn't use it then it's therefore dangerous and unusual' is thoroughly debunked today because all modern militaries and police forces have full auto, SBRs, SBSs and silencers as well. If I followed the strict reasoning of Miller and applied in 2023 it should be thoroughly rejected.

I do feel that Clarence Thomas did us all a good solid by taking the argument about what constitutes 'constitutional law' and reeling it back in. I know many people still refer to Cruikshank and Miller because they state clearly 2A is an individual right and that basing further decisions on 19th and 20th century jurisprudence means having to deal with the outright racism of during and after reconstruction after the civil war. Having Bruen and Heller means that we no longer have to look towards Cruikshank or Miller in case law. I still maintain that although Cruikshank says "2A is an individual right" it's still bad law because in all gun control past that time and upheld it was done under the guise of Cruikshank. That's why gun control is inherently racist. McDonald is the decision that technically took the wind out of that sail when they said that 2A is binding on the states. Miller by contrast is just a decision that didn't stand the test of time.

 

[whatluck]

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.)

Yeah. I believe if there's no victim there's no crime. Only time the govt should intervene is when someone's rights are being violated.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

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)

I don't think Clarence Thomas is going to look back at his own decisions or even allow lower courts to do the same and ignore them.

 

[Mesatchornug]

This is one thing I could never wrap my brain around in the Us v Miller case is the fact that Miller had already died in prison before his case made it to the supreme court so how could it not be moot by that point unless the prevailing feeling is that there was still a controversy.

But at this point I part ways with Miller because the reasoning of what constituted 'dangerous and unusual' in Miller is that 'If the military doesn't use it then it's therefore dangerous and unusual' is thoroughly debunked today because all modern militaries and police forces have full auto, SBRs, SBSs and silencers as well. If I followed the strict reasoning of Miller and applied in 2023 it should be thoroughly rejected.

I do feel that Clarence Thomas did us all a good solid by taking the argument about what constitutes 'constitutional law' and reeling it back in. I know many people still refer to Cruikshank and Miller because they state clearly 2A is an individual right and that basing further decisions on 19th and 20th century jurisprudence means having to deal with the outright racism of during and after reconstruction after the civil war. Having Bruen and Heller means that we no longer have to look towards Cruikshank or Miller in case law. I still maintain that although Cruikshank says "2A is an individual right" it's still bad law because in all gun control past that time and upheld it was done under the guise of Cruikshank. That's why gun control is inherently racist. McDonald is the decision that technically took the wind out of that sail when they said that 2A is binding on the states. Miller by contrast is just a decision that didn't stand the test of time.

Miller should have defeated the NFA in 1939. Because he was dead there was no final defense, as a result they felt comfortable splitting the baby. They argued that SBSs aren't used in warfare so they needn't be protected from infringement. In reality, they were in use by the US military in specialist roles during WWI. A complete defense probably would have knocked down everything, but the Court wanted to protect the government's ability to interfere where it feels it knows best.

In the world where Miller survived to complete the case, the intervening 84 years of creeping restriction might never have happened.

 

[SIGNES]

@Mesatchornug I am absolutely not talking about you making threats and I sincerely apologize that my phrasing was too ambiguous to have that not be obvious. I think we both know who I meant.

For all practical purposes, people can't currently buy SAWs. The same people who can now would continue to be able to just as current MA law appears to preclude it and yet there, IIRC, are ~1700 machine guns (including one owned by a friend) in MA right now. Propose laws that improve the status quo but allow the opposition to declare victory.

 

[Harry Christopher]

When you are as old and dilapidated as yours truly, any delay at all could possibly mean escaping the anti-2A monstrosity bill altogether.

As a certifiable old fart myself I had to laugh when I read this statement. Frankly I had not previously considered my projective non-compliance with any future restrictions on what I consider to be my inalienable Constitutional civil rights to be due to my no longer being alive and available for governmental victimization by legislation. It is the old I am dead that will show them philosophy employed when one is addressing unpalatable increases in governmental interference in the options available to us and choices we can make during the conduct of our daily lives.

She Who Must Be Obeyed will in all likelihood probably outlive me by only 25 or 30 years assuming that she is able to minimize the number of times she is injured during the course of riding large horses and empirically proving that the nanny state has still not been capable, despite its best efforts, of revoking the basic principles of gravity. Wherever I end up when my life reaches the knot in the rope of life woven by the Greek Muses I would like to think that she has the appropriate tools available to her to choose from for the active protection of her life.

My ongoing participation in trying to stem the tide of insipid legislative stupidity is predicated upon the belief that if we do not band together and attempt to interject a modicum of common sense into the entire legislative process now....... then when do we enter the arena of political discourse to fight against the progressive attempts to dismantle all the precepts that this country was originally founded upon? While the arrogance of ignorance may in fact be a wonder to behold it is also true that it makes for demonstrably poor governance.

I guess that my intent is to not only fight for the present but perhaps, more importantly to my way of thinking, to fight for her future available choices. While it is certainly true that the issue, as they say, is in doubt the result of capitulation is all too distressingly encompassing for me to contemplate as an acceptable outcome to the matter at hand.

Remember...... when arriving at the checkout counter asking the clerk if in light of your being a certifiable old person can you qualify for a senior citizen discount of some sort is considered a social faux pas of the first rank......especially when one is in a grocery store.......or so I have been reliably informed........repeatedly.....

 

[kevin9]

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.

This is an Astrolube proposal.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

That’s not the take away on “regulated”.

Regulated just means well equipped and well trained, in good working order. Not being in service to the government.

Look at any of the militia documentation from back then. Militia members (restricted to white adult males back then, but essentially just “the people”) were to train and maintain their kit. That is what being well regulated meant.

At the very core of the 2nd amendment, people should have an AR(realistically an M4), a full combat load of magazines and ammo, and attend carbine courses and rehearse battle drills with others.

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … .”


a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades … and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).

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. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.


Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

 

[Skeeter]

Called Mariano & Creem’s offices so far this morning. I got the feeling at least from Creem’s aide, that she was dreading having to answer tons of calls. I say ring them up.

 

[Skeeter]

Creem looks to be the next proposer so flooding her office with correspondence is probably a good idea.

 

[pastera]

This is one thing I could never wrap my brain around in the Us v Miller case is the fact that Miller had already died in prison before his case made it to the supreme court so how could it not be moot by that point unless the prevailing feeling is that there was still a controversy.

Judicial Activism - the government knew they were on shaky ground with the NFA and took the opportunity with a friendly court to support their position regardless of how it would be seen in the future

But at this point I part ways with Miller because the reasoning of what constituted 'dangerous and unusual' in Miller is that 'If the military doesn't use it then it's therefore dangerous and unusual' is thoroughly debunked today because all modern militaries and police forces have full auto, SBRs, SBSs and silencers as well. If I followed the strict reasoning of Miller and applied in 2023 it should be thoroughly rejected.

The issue is that it gets tied to individual arms instead of a class of arms
A hand grenade is unambiguously useful for military use but, being an indiscriminate area weapon, would be considered "dangerous and unusual"
A short barrel shotgun is useful for military use in close quarters (not argued in Miller) but is a member of the class of arms defined as shotguns closely sharing function, ability and use therefore is not "dangerous and unusual" in itself.

I do feel that Clarence Thomas did us all a good solid by taking the argument about what constitutes 'constitutional law' and reeling it back in. I know many people still refer to Cruikshank and Miller because they state clearly 2A is an individual right and that basing further decisions on 19th and 20th century jurisprudence means having to deal with the outright racism of during and after reconstruction after the civil war. Having Bruen and Heller means that we no longer have to look towards Cruikshank or Miller in case law. I still maintain that although Cruikshank says "2A is an individual right" it's still bad law because in all gun control past that time and upheld it was done under the guise of Cruikshank. That's why gun control is inherently racist. McDonald is the decision that technically took the wind out of that sail when they said that 2A is binding on the states. Miller by contrast is just a decision that didn't stand the test of time.

Bolded is what needs to be pushed - Gun control was/is pushed by the same groups under the same reasoning as Jim Crow laws, miscegenation laws, etc.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

COMMERCIAL BREAK……

Ever wonder what the men who founded this country and wrote the Constitution actually said about the 2nd Amendment?

Read and share…….

Thread 'Compilation: Founding Fathers Comments on the 2nd Amendment'
Compilation: Founding Fathers Comments on the 2nd Amendment

NOW BACK TO THE THREAD …..

 

[Tallahassee]

Is SIGNES really Representative Day?

NES listening tour.

 

[PappyM3]

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State … .”


a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades … and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).

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. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.


Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Your Miller quote does not really address regulated. And your other references are pretty similar to what I said.

 

[TJ4]

Creem looks to be the next proposer so flooding her office with correspondence is probably a good idea.

So they didn’t like the idea of the fat Irishman Marxist getting national attention and now are using a female Marxist. I think once they realized how much attention they could get nationally their ears perked up and they know that they can’t let the presumably straight white male get the credit when they have so many others they can push into the lead. I can’t tell you how many white liberals I see online saying it’s time for straight white men to step aside and let the disenfranchised take the lead. There are a ton of dems who are pissed at the prospect of another dull-eyed white guy getting more power in their party.

 

[Harry Christopher]

Called Mariano & Creem’s offices so far this morning. I got the feeling at least from Creem’s aide, that she was dreading having to answer tons of calls. I say ring them up.

I wrote an email to the Senator when I read the news article about her point of view on future gun legislation last evening. The email is on page 146 of this thread. This is the response that I received to that email:

Dear Friend,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. This is an automated response to acknowledge that your message was received. If this matter is urgent or time-sensitive, or if you are anxious for a reply, please call to discuss the issue with me or a staff member at 617-722-1639. Thanks again for reaching out, it is a pleasure to serve you in the State Senate.

Sincerely,

Cindy
Cynthia Stone Creem, Majority Leader

Massachusetts State Senate

Norfolk & Middlesex District

Room 312A, State House

Boston, MA 02133

www.senatorcindycreem.com

 

[Mesatchornug]

@Mesatchornug I am absolutely not talking about you making threats and I sincerely apologize that my phrasing was too ambiguous to have that not be obvious. I think we both know who I meant.

Cool, we can kiss and make up.

For all practical purposes, people can't currently buy SAWs. The same people who can now would continue to be able to just as current MA law appears to preclude it and yet there,

Literally the only thing stopping them is money. If your only problems can be solved with money, you don't have any problems. Therefore, machine guns are available to most anyone - yes, even in MA.

IIRC, are ~1700 machine guns (including one owned by a friend) in MA right now.

Point of correction: per the latest available numbers, there are 1,991 Resident Licenses to Possess a Machine Gun, i.e., Green Cards, in MA. It's safe to assume that there are (on average) more than 1 MG per MG license in the Commonwealth...

Propose laws that improve the status quo but allow the opposition to declare victory.

It's almost like you read Chris Voss' book, but missed his point.
Amazon product ASIN B014DUR7L2View: https://www.amazon.com/Never-Split-Difference-Negotiating-Depended-ebook/dp/B014DUR7L2


Yes, successful negotiation requires finding a shared victory condition. But you keep offering solutions that cede ground for us. That's the opposite of a "shared victory condition."

 

[VTski4x4]

NES listening tour.

If he was a tranny, he would use his 2A rights to take ours, and then hand his guns in when the job was done. He apparently doesn't understand the intent behind the 2A if he thinks applying the law as it's written is a threat of violence towards our Mastahs.

 

[JDL]

Come on there is no reason for anyone to have a firearm that holds more then two rounds.

 

[SIGNES]

COMMERCIAL BREAK……

Ever wonder what the men who founded this country and wrote the Constitution actually said about the 2nd Amendment?

Read and share…….

Thread 'Compilation: Founding Fathers Comments on the 2nd Amendment'
Compilation: Founding Fathers Comments on the 2nd Amendment

NOW BACK THE THREAD …..

I agree with those quotes but the problem is, there is some misattribution and lack of context. One link of many worth a look at: Institute on the Constitution Uses Fake George Washington Quote on Second Amendment – Warren Throckmorton is just one example of deeper research that adds ambiguity.

I'm not saying the 2nd amendment doesn't codify a right for citizen gun ownership. I am saying, we need to be very careful with the quotes we cite to make the arguments.

 

[SIGNES]

Come on there is no reason for anyone to have a firearm that holds more then two rounds.

No! We can't have those! Derringers are the guns of transients and gamblers!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

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)

The only purpose of a multi-tiered system would be to bypass Bruen while providing special exemptions for persons of privilege, power and influence. From my point of view, Bruen was more about the concept of all persons being equal than guns. It would be just like pre-Bruen but the issue would be "who gets a Carry A?" rather than "who gets unrestricted?". Bad idea.

Create a multi-tiered system, and MA will declare "B" to be Bruen compliant, make lots of sensitive places, and issue "A" only to special people - exactly what Bruen stuck down so in a decade or two SCOTUS might enforce the law.

As to the string of compurrenders (compromise surrenders) the only way to stop really bad stuff from coattailing on a ghost gun law is to push to have the ghost gun bill contain only that - and each item other can stand on it's own.

----------------------------------

Ever wonder what the men who founded this country and wrote the Constitution actually said about the 2nd Amendment?

If something is controversial one has to be vewwy careful about the wording. The Natick school committee decided to get rid of the "Redmen" name. The people voted to have the school board reconsider, which it did and said "nope, we stay the woke course". The "reconsider" was as clear in meaning as when the large individual at a strip club "asks" you to leave - but the school committee responded with "we did exactly what you asked - we reconsidered the decision". Not unlike how the media tries to twist the words of gun shop owners in interviews.

----------------------------------

The thing about compromise is; we can either compromise or be compromised.

Giving up territory you will lose no matter what is not compromise; it is being beaten. Sometimes one has to cede territory in a conflict, but calling such a "compromise" is logically and factually incorrect. I believe we are beaten in legislative votes and the court of public opinion on ghost guns.

In my entire life, I have seen only one legislative compromise. Pre-Brady,, WA state had "may issue". A deal was made - background check in exchange for shall issue. Good move because if the deal was not made, the Brady law would have left our side with nothing to negotiate. Naturally, the opposition tried to pass legislation to undo shall issue immediately thereafter, however, that did not gain traction.

On the other side I have seen numerous double crosses where "this is it, done deal" really meant "we will not honor our commitments made in the deal" or "we'll be back for more later". The new effort an another AW ban after the deal worked out with GOAL on the last one is one example. Another is from Canada - "Ok, you need high cap mags for matches - we're adding a high cap mag license to the new gun law". Law passes and the next statement is "No such licenses shall be issued".