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

[milktree]

First thing would be to make sure these criminals are held accountable for any illegal gun possession.
I see many reports of repeat offenders/ "prohibited people" commonly committing these gun crimes that should have been serving time.

Min sentences of 5 years for 1st offense for criminal possession of a firearm without a ltc

That's insane. It's a malum prohibitum law. Someone drives into Mass from a free state and without hurting anyone gets five years?

Any gun trafficking conviction should have a lifetime sentence, especially because the person selling them knows the criminals wouldn't use for any other purpose than crime / murder

What does "any gun trafficking" mean? Selling a gun without state permission? Add "any" to that and you're in the territory of imprisoning someone who moved into the state with a bunch of guns, then decided to sell them.

Let's face it our city's, and streets are flooding with criminals, violence, drugs , human trafficking, homeless, and mental illnesses. We need more ways to help put a stop to this not less.

"flooding"? I mean, yea, we should work to stop those things, but don't amplify problems just for attention.

We need more mental health support.

This whole "mental health" thing is a red herring.

Most violent crime is, at its core, economic, not mental-health related. Access to mental health is really important, and should be expanded, but don't fool yourself into thinking it'll make a measurable dent in violent crime. Even suicide (which is a HUGE percentage of so-called "gun deaths") are frequently related to economic problems.

It's like the "need more training" canard. Sure, training is good. But "providing more training" isn't going to reduce violent crime. Not even a tiny bit. Training will reduce accidental or negligent gun injuries, but they're not what we'd call a "big problem" in the greater context of deaths or injuries with guns.

Legalizing drugs will not reduce crime and the day will come when we will regret doing it. It's all about the Government getting their hands on more money to piss up a tree.

I dunno, it worked pretty well when prohibition was ended.

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.

It's not a race issue. Unless you're suggesting that black people are inherrently violent.... which I'm sure you're not, because that's pretty f***ing bigoted.

But again... it's economic. I'd bet the statistics track economics way better than race. i.e.: people in desperate situations to desperate things. It turns out for many historically institutionalized reasons black people fall into the "economically desperate" category way more than white people.

• Massachusetts had the lowest firearm homicide rate, while Mississippi had the highest.

I'm pretty sure Maine and Vermont and New Hampshire all have lower murder rates, but Mass. is one of the better states on that metric.

We need stronger family values.

Careful with this, it's frequently used as dogwhistle for stuff that doesn't win elections.

 

[Mesatchornug]

The Second Amendment is errata - a clarifying update to earlier publications.

Article 1 Section 8 makes everything clear, if we think about what it says for half a second.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/

Clause 11 War Powers
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Letter of marque - Wikipedia (emphasis mine)

a government license [...] that authorized a private person, known as a privateer or corsair, to attack and capture vessels of a nation at war with the issuer.

A government cannot authorize private individuals to act as pirates (replete with outfitted warships) unless those individuals are allowed to have the trappings of the job.

By what rationale can we support private warships, loaded with cannons, but not support individuals with rifles?

 

[SIGNES]

Cool, we can kiss and make up.


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.


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...


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."

I can't rationalize the cost of even one machine gun at current prices. But where I was going with my suggestions re: machine guns was: They are currently 'banned' in MA. They are currently heavily restricted under the NFA. We cede nothing letting them keep the current laws and win something by explicitly tying them to federal law. If somebody successfully challenges the NFA, problem solved.

But.. there's an indirect factor in play I am only now considering. Since, as you correctly point out and my joke about current prices amplifies, there is entrenched interest purely on the investment value for those in power, even on a national basis, to keep full auto extremely limited. Those who have $70k machine guns sure as hell won't be inclined to work for laws that will have them suddenly being worth a few hundred bucks.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

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.

There are 37 quotes to choose from. Dig deeper.

 

[Mesatchornug]

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

But you just said we should accept a ban on carry of anything smaller than a P365...which is it?

 

[milktree]

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...

I don't think that's a safe assumption. I know at least one person who has a MG licence, "just in case he wants to get a MG"

Given the high cost of machineguns, I am reasonably confident there are more than just the one I know who has a MG licence, but no actual machine guns.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I can't rationalize the cost of even one machine gun at current prices. But where I was going with my suggestions re: machine guns was: They are currently 'banned' in MA. They are currently heavily restricted under the NFA. We cede nothing letting them keep the current laws and win something by explicitly tying them to federal law. If somebody successfully challenges the NFA, problem solved.

No, they are not banned. They require a MA machine gun license which is available or not depending on your town, connections and level of importance. In some towns, even ordinary unconnected people can get MA MG licenses.

 

[Mesatchornug]

I can't rationalize the cost of even one machine gun at current prices.

Once again, that's you making decisions for others based on your uses. You can do better.

But where I was going with my suggestions re: machine guns was: They are currently 'banned' in MA.

But they're not. Not even a little. There's an additional license. It's "challenging" to get, but really requires two things: C&R (what, $10/year?) and to live in a town that grants them - which is most of them.

They are currently heavily restricted under the NFA.

Kinda. You pay a fee, and inform then feds when you bring it out of state. I'm sure there's more that I don't know as I haven't gotten into them yet.

They're more heavily restricted by the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 - an hilarious "compromise."

We cede nothing letting them keep the current laws and win something by explicitly tying them to federal law. If somebody successfully challenges the NFA, problem solved.

Except then you try to tie things that aren't machine guns (bumpstocks and FRTs) to them. This is ceding ground a la Overton Window. And, pretending it's anything less is two-faced.

But.. there's an indirect factor in play I am only now considering. Since, as you correctly point out and my joke about current prices amplifies, there is entrenched interest purely on the investment value for those in power, even on a national basis, to keep full auto extremely limited. Those who have $70k machine guns sure as hell won't be inclined to work for laws that will have them suddenly being worth a few hundred bucks.

There are some in that category who have fought it for just this reason.

There are others who have said proudly, and publicly, that they'd happily "donate" the value of those firearms if it meant the NFA fell.

 

[Mesatchornug]

I don't think that's a safe assumption. I know at least one person who has a MG licence, "just in case he wants to get a MG"

Given the high cost of machineguns, I am reasonably confident there are more than just the one I know who has a MG licence, but no actual machine guns.

Sure.

I also know people who own several machine guns. I'd guess there are more of the latter than the former, though I've been wrong on less.

 

[pastera]

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.

But Thomas allows for a great many licensing requirements in Bruen:

By contrast, 43 States employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes. Those shall-issue regimes may require a license applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a backgroundcheck, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force,among other possible requirements.

Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handgunsfor self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall issue States.

 

[pastera]

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.

I was assuming Bruen's requirement for objective standards would be followed:

Going forward, therefore, the 43 States that employ objective shall-issue licensing regimes for carrying handguns for self-defense may continue to do so. Likewise, the 6 States including New York potentially affected by today’s decision may continue to require licenses for carrying handguns for self-defense so long as those States employ objective licensing requirements like those used by the 43 shall issue States.

Everything in the statement points toward shall issue therefore if you pass an objective (and achievable) standard then you get the license.

 

[pastera]

@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.

For all practical purposes it was legal to own and discriminate against whole classes of people until those infringements were rectified by war and the courts.

The Hughes amend is only on the books because the case law surrounding the 2nd is still scarcely fleshed out.

 

[pastera]

I don't think that's a safe assumption. I know at least one person who has a MG licence, "just in case he wants to get a MG"

Given the high cost of machineguns, I am reasonably confident there are more than just the one I know who has a MG licence, but no actual machine guns.

But there are also those who maintain an FFL in order to possess non-transferable MGs - there are probably the same or more legal machine guns in Mass as the number of MG licenses.

 

[milktree]

But they're not. Not even a little. There's an additional license. It's "challenging" to get, but really requires two things: C&R (what, $10/year?) and to live in a town that grants them - which is most of them.

Where's the source for this?

According to the 2021 active licence report, there are 309 towns that have issued MG licences, but that's not the same thing. e.g.: Billerica has 3 MG licences, but (as far as I know), it's impossible to actually get a MG licence in Billerica unless... I dunno what it takes. I understand even the cops can't get MG licences. Maybe the three are people who moved into Billerica and they will honor a renewal.

 

[Goliathan]

Where's the source for this?

According to the 2021 active licence report, there are 309 towns that have issued MG licences, but that's not the same thing. e.g.: Billerica has 3 MG licences, but (as far as I know), it's impossible to actually get a MG licence in Billerica unless... I dunno what it takes. I understand even the cops can't get MG licences. Maybe the three are people who moved into Billerica and they will honor a renewal.

Not to be pedantic, but 309/351 = most of them. Now, the second half of that qualifier is the trick: you have to be a higher class of citizen than the average unwashed peon to get one.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Where's the source for this?

According to the 2021 active licence report, there are 309 towns that have issued MG licences, but that's not the same thing. e.g.: Billerica has 3 MG licences, but (as far as I know), it's impossible to actually get a MG licence in Billerica unless... I dunno what it takes. I understand even the cops can't get MG licences. Maybe the three are people who moved into Billerica and they will honor a renewal.

You're probably right, I likely was stronger on that than is merited - many can be defended easily. Of course, 309 is more than 50% of 351, so it might not be a huge stretch. Yes, some towns are extra hard, and some have been happy to have their one license holder leave, so they'd have an excuse to stop offering them in the future.

 

[pastera]

You're probably right, I likely was stronger on that than is merited - many can be defended easily. Of course, 309 is more than 50% of 351, so it might not be a huge stretch. Yes, some towns are extra hard, and some have been happy to have their one license holder leave, so they'd have an excuse to stop offering them in the future.

Non-issue of MG licenses is an easily winnable case under Bruen.
But since there are much bigger fish to fry at the moment then it will be overlooked for a long time.

 

[426wedge]

First of all, you do realize that politicians going after “Saturday night specials” was an attempt to disarm black people, right? Saturday night specials were just cheap guns.

Second, f*** off.



No. Do you even know the level of scrutiny that the Bruen ruling demands?

I second the f***off

 

[nin8888nin]

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.

HI Day or Mariano
I hope you choke on HD 4420 and it's revamps

 

[Dennis in MA]

It may have been said in teh last 30 pages (lol) but let's not get complacent. In the fall, be ready to send another 8-10 emails, letters and phone calls to each legislator and the committee leaders. We haven't won yet. And while the courts WILL side with us eventually, better to not have to deal with this BS in the interim.

EDIT - And no quarter. No negotiation. I'm mister "let's find common ground" on most things. But F that. F them. And F their silly desire for nothing.

I had two run-ins on this in teh last 24 hours. Some dolt on FB saying that the State recommending a special tax on streaming that "a percentage would be paid to cities and towns to cover the losses they're having on lower cable fees" was shit because the State was taking a cut where they got none before. "But it would be better if we had local cable." No. It wouldn't. Not at all. F them and their money. I'll deal with hte cities and towns figuring out how to pay for local cable instead of giving Bacon Hill more $.

And this AM I had a client that said that he'd rather see the Feds stop paying $ to Ukraine and use the $ to pay down college debt. I told him he could pound sand as well. That's MY money and if they're not gonna use it, pay off the debt or send it back. It's not an either-or. They are mutually exclusive costs and F them both. Shockingly, his daughter has college loans. And he hates taxes. Unless they go to pay off her college loans. LOL

 

[Harry Christopher]

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.

Back in the day.....way back.....when I was living in Switzerland I can vividly recall seeing the Swiss practicing this very concept of inclusive citizen participation for the overall defense of their nation. While this concept is today considered to be an anachronism best suited to the mindless relegation upon the dustbin of history it seems to have worked out remarkable well for the Swiss nation as a whole over the course of the intervening years.

The original 2nd amendment was written when invasion of the nascent country was a very real possibility in light of the world political situation of those times. Today the threat of invasion by an armed military adversary is less apparent or so one would hope. The invasion along the southern border is another matter altogether. The present-day legislators are not drawing up new legislation with an eye upon what they perceive as would be in the best interests of the nation as a whole. They are instead demonstrating beyond any doubt their slavish and dogmatic devotion to the propagation of whatever the current in vogue party narrative happens to be on any given day.

Today the term "public servants' has become in reality the epidemy of the definition of the word oxymoron. They certainly are not interested in having their legislative machinations viewed in the surgical light of dawn by the great unwashed and they most definitely don't consider themselves servants of that same social cohort. In point of fact their constituents are the special interests who purchased their services a long time ago.

It strikes me that our only defense against proposed legislation best relegated to a quick trip to the nearest landfill facility is to maintain a well-honed political situational awareness as to what is actually occurring on a local, state and national level and NEVER EVER affording these politicians the luxury of believing that theirs is the only voice of reason that arises above the din. The late Colonel Jeff Cooper once said his parental philosophy was to teach his children to ride, shoot straight and tell the truth. As hard is it may be to believe there are still some families that adhere to that philosophy even today and are quite comfortable in flat out ignoring the current officially proscribed woke school of living that we are seeing on a daily basis.

 

[Picton]

Home Depot would only have pot metal, imported SAWs.

Home Depot carries plenty of saws...

Seriously, can you imagine how hard it would be to get good customer assistance in the MG aisle? It'd take forever to find an Orange Apron to tell you where they were, then when you got there it would be M240s and not M249s, so they'd have to ask the manager, then once you found the right aisle there'd be a ten-minute delay while they close off both ends and summon the one guy in the store qualified to go up on the lift and grab the box, because the SAW on the shelf is just a floor model and has no bolt.

No thanks. You could just go to the handtool aisle instead, buy a file, and have as many MGs as there are semiautos in your safe. Lol.

 

[freddieMA]

It may have been said in teh last 30 pages (lol) but let's not get complacent. In the fall, be ready to send another 8-10 emails, letters and phone calls to each legislator and the committee leaders. We haven't won yet. And while the courts WILL side with us eventually, better to not have to deal with this BS in the interim.

EDIT - And no quarter. No negotiation. I'm mister "let's find common ground" on most things. But F that. F them. And F their silly desire for nothing.

I had two run-ins on this in teh last 24 hours. Some dolt on FB saying that the State recommending a special tax on streaming that "a percentage would be paid to cities and towns to cover the losses they're having on lower cable fees" was shit because the State was taking a cut where they got none before. "But it would be better if we had local cable." No. It wouldn't. Not at all. F them and their money. I'll deal with hte cities and towns figuring out how to pay for local cable instead of giving Bacon Hill more $.

And this AM I had a client that said that he'd rather see the Feds stop paying $ to Ukraine and use the $ to pay down college debt. I told him he could pound sand as well. That's MY money and if they're not gonna use it, pay off the debt or send it back. It's not an either-or. They are mutually exclusive costs and F them both. Shockingly, his daughter has college loans. And he hates taxes. Unless they go to pay off her college loans. LOL

the problem when there's too much money sloshing around and politicians start feeling like oprah claus

 

[Mesatchornug]

Home Depot carries plenty of saws...

Seriously, can you imagine how hard it would be to get good customer assistance in the MG aisle? It'd take forever to find an Orange Apron to tell you where they were, then when you got there it would be M240s and not M249s, so they'd have to ask the manager, then once you found the right aisle there'd be a ten-minute delay while they close off both ends and summon the one guy in the store qualified to go up on the lift and grab the box, because the SAW on the shelf is just a floor model and has no bolt.

No thanks. You could just go to the handtool aisle instead, buy a file, and have as many MGs as there are semiautos in your safe. Lol.

And here I was, thinking that I'd place the order for pickup - because the website claims there are a dozen in stock - only to be told: "sorry, that inventory is always wrong." Then I'd have to cancel the original order and call every store in the Commonwealth to see if anybody actually has one in stock. Then, after driving 2.5 hours to Pittsfield, I could have your experience.

 

[Picton]

And here I was, thinking that I'd place the order for pickup - because the website claims there are a dozen in stock - only to be told: "sorry, that inventory is always wrong." Then I'd have to cancel the original order and call every store in the Commonwealth to see if anybody actually has one in stock. Then, after driving 2.5 hours to Pittsfield, I could have your experience.

But, of course, they're out of links to belt your ammo. So you're SOL anyway, having to deal with that sketchy SAW magazine feed.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

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

But dropping to your knees and gargling their nuts does win? Yeah, hard pass, thanks.

I'll continue to insist on "mah" rights unabridged. Now go on tell me how I'm a rube and unyielding opposition to government infringement is a tantrum.

 

[Mesatchornug]

But, of course, they're out of links to belt your ammo. So you're SOL anyway, having to deal with that sketchy SAW magazine feed.

Don't tell my manager I said this, but I hear Lowes, across town, has links. They're off brand, but they're like 80% as good. Just make sure you do a test run, and throw out the ones that jam...you might also pass them through the tumbler.

 

[GM-GUY]

I got a call back from my rep, I made sure to tell him if they pass this or anything similar 'I will not comply', he was silent for a moment and said it was my call - I agreed and told him just to file that info away that a Military Veteran that hasn't gotten even a parking ticket in over 20 years has no reason to turn over anything.

 

[The Anchor]

not sure if this has been posted but Sen Fattman is hosting this round table tonight, and his response to me about the timing of it and how he thinks our voices are being heard by some of the pols

 

[freddieMA]

View attachment 778318
not sure if this has been posted but Sen Fattman is hosting this round table tonight, and his response to me about the timing of it and how he thinks our voices are being heard by some of the pols

any chance at all this is available by zoom?