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

[JackOfAllTrades]

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 have had a similar conversation.

I pointed out that the status quo is never enough. Let's say that we live in a land where there are no background checks at all. We think this is just fine. The Antis think this is horrible as anyone can walk into your local S-Mart and buy a shotgun out of a barrel. They want a background check for all sales. We think that background checks might be a reasonable thing but bring up that we would have to do background checks for gifts and inheritances and that might be a bit unreasonable. They agree and now we have background checks through dealers but not private sales. A compromise.

Ten years down the road they want to close the "private sale loophole". Now we are fighting the same fight again but this time a 100% win would be to keep the compromise we made last time. So we compromise again and now private sales need background checks while inheritances don't. Another compromise.

Ten years later they want to close the inheritance loophole...

Today's compromise is tomorrow's loophole.

It applies to everything government sticks their nose into. It's only a little tax on a few items. It's only a little tax on a few more items. It's only a little tax on all items. It's only a little tax hike. It's only a small percent of your income...

Because of this, the answer to "common sense" asks is "no".

 

[sig shooter]

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

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

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

Are you a Healy operative? Do you work for Everytown? Moms Demand Action?

 

[Coyote33]

Like a light switch, they could flip back again in a second.

Do not trust.

 

[Harry Christopher]

View attachment 778490

A note from the GOAL Board of Directors

I believe that Chairman Day said that he listened to individuals who represented both anti and pro gun ownership points of view during his listening tour prior to drawing up 4420 (which of course is for the children).

It is my understanding that this is an image of one of the so called Pro 2A supporters who he said fully and without any reservations whatsoever supports his reasonable bill:

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Be assured, they have tasted blood and will be back.

Now, we know what their wish list is.

 

[mothybee]

There wasn't a lot of detail in the decision but it's part of what Kavanaugh wrote in the decision. At the time Kavanuagh wrote the dissenting opinion before it went to SCOTUS and in the dissent Kavanaugh wrote that licensing could exist as long as it was extremely nominal. I guess we call it weasel words. Kavanaugh also wrote in that same decision that bans on assault weapons would also fail the Heller test in the dissent.

Here is his dissent:

"Indeed, basic registration requirements are self evidently de minimis, for they are similar to other common registration or licensing schemes, such as those for voting or for driving a car, that cannot reasonably be considered onerous. Cf. Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 753, 754–58(1973) (law “requir[ing] a voter to enroll in the party of his choice at least 30 days before the general election in November in order to vote in the next subsequent party primary” does not violate First and Fourteenth Amendments because “if [the petitioners’] plight [could] be characterized as disenfranchisement at all, it was not caused by [the law], but by their own failure to take timely steps to effect their enrollment”); id. at 760 (“the State is certainly justified in imposing some reasonable cutoff point for registration or party enrollment, which citizens must meet in order to participate in the next election”);"

So in other words an LTC can be no more of an inconvenience than registering a car or registering to vote. I'd say we're 50 steps past that now.

DC circuit decision: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...c748525791f004d84f9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

Huh, didn't know driving was a constitutional right.

 

[Picton]

Huh, didn't know driving was a constitutional right.

The voting one makes a whole lot more sense. Though I don't believe in banning people from voting because they didn't pre-register, either; still, there are safeguards there.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Huh, didn't know driving was a constitutional right.

The court isn't addressing that issue. Kavanaugh is stating what a gun license process would look like. It should be easy as registering to vote or registering a car. Not fill in 50 forms, wait 6 months, come back 6 months later to see if you're still interested, take some classes, come back for fingerprints, make a list of the guns you plan to buy (if that's even possible), fill out some more forms and if you haven't died of old age you get a license.

 

[btnh6668]

I think it's that feeling like when your colonoscopy gets delayed a week.

Couldn't have asked for a better explanation

 

[Marty McFly]

Couldn't have asked for a better explanation

You didn't ask for pictures of my last one either but check your pm's

 

[Dadstoys]

"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"

Yes, I did mess up with the ltc thing but did say prohibited people along with criminal possession I wasn't fully thinking it through.

Why are you so against cracking down on drugs, violence and crime?

What I suggest would not infringe on any rights of Massachusetts gun owners, and I wasn't thinking of other states at the time.

All U.S states reciprocity of your right to carry should definitely be a thing as Massachusetts does not recognize any other states right to carry.

Like I have said I've personally seen the destruction, violence and desperation that drugs cause within my own family, and friends.

I am trying to help not hurt our community. But you feel the need to express my thoughts in a negative way.

If someone comes up with any better ideas I welcome them. If I find something wrong with their ideas..suggest better ones we can all stand for.

Finding a common ground is important within our community, and should be a relatively easy thing to do.

I suggested harsh penalties for:

prohibited people caught with a firearm.

Illegal gun trafficking.

Illegal drug trafficking.

I don't believe that lawful gun owners deserve any infringement upon their rights ultimately. That's why what I suggested was restoration of rights without taking anything away. Because the issue is not the Massachusetts gun owners.

IIRC there was a post a few years ago here that outlined the total penalties for say armed robbery in this state with an illegally possessed firearm.
The total penalties would have been , if convicted and given the max sentences on all would be something along the lines of 300 years , which of course will never happen because we loves us some dangerous folk out free to roam and terrorize.
We need one more law like I need a third ball

 

[Garys]

The clear intent is what the Supreme Court says it is.

Lol. It's not you and me that matter. It's the Constitution and its words that matter.

The clear intent involves soldiers in the service of our own government.

 

[Picton]

The clear intent is what the Supreme Court says it is.

Well... I'd like to think the Founders had a LITTLE bit of insight into why they included that amendment, too... in the absence of SCOTUS, who hasn't ruled on this and probably never will, we have the Federalist Papers to clue us in to what their intent was. We also have, to that point, over a century of colony-level grievances, charters, and warrants slamming the quartering of regular soldiers and trying to get out of having to pay for them.

It's pretty clear that when they wrote "soldiers," they meant soldiers. Meaning, a standing army under their own government's control.

 

[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"

Yes, I did mess up with the ltc thing but did say prohibited people along with criminal possession I wasn't fully thinking it through.

Yep. "not thinking it through" is a problem.

Why are you so against cracking down on drugs, violence and crime?

That's a strawman. I never said anything like that.

For starters, "drugs" are not a crime, they don't hurt anyone who doesn't use them. Just like "guns" aren't a crime.

What I suggest would not infringe on any rights of Massachusetts gun owners, and I wasn't thinking of other states at the time.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and call this attitude, "anti-freedom". They're people too, and are entitled to not have their rights trampled. And you're wrong. Forcing people to get a permission slip from the king to exercise a right seems a lot like "infringement". Or do you mean "not make the shit deeper"?

All U.S states reciprocity of your right to carry should definitely be a thing as Massachusetts does not recognize any other states right to carry.

Sure, that's good. I agree. That's the opposite of "put people from other states in jail"

Like I have said I've personally seen the destruction, violence and desperation that drugs cause within my own family, and friends.

I am trying to help not hurt our community. But you feel the need to express my thoughts in a negative way.

I have a good friend who says the exact same thing about guns. I'm sorry your experience has sucked so much, that's terrible. But that's not the same thing as "we should ban them" or "they're bad". I can't count the number of people I know who use drugs and have no problems at all. So, there's my anecdote.

I suggested harsh penalties for:

prohibited people caught with a firearm.

Great! Does "guilty of copyright violation" count as "prohibited" in your world? It does in the world of .gov. You better be more specific, or you're hoovering up a huge number of people that pose no danger to themselves or anyone else with that statement

- Illegal gun trafficking.
- Illegal drug trafficking.

Again, unless you get a lot more specific, this would make felons of a lot of people who haven't hurt anyone. Transporting pot across state lines is a felony. Selling guns to non-felons who happen to live in a stupid state is a felony.

By advocating for those things as felonies, you're admitting that the laws making them so are reasonable. (hint: freedom says they're not)

 

[PappyM3]

Huh, didn't know driving was a constitutional right.

It was one of the most basic rights that they didn’t feel the need to enumerate it. Free travel within the states. They made it well known that the bill of rights were not all inclusive.

 

[Junior314]

Like a light switch, they could will flip back again in a second.

Do not trust.

FIFY

 

[mousegunfan]

There wasn't a lot of detail in the decision but it's part of what Kavanaugh wrote in the decision. At the time Kavanuagh wrote the dissenting opinion before it went to SCOTUS and in the dissent Kavanaugh wrote that licensing could exist as long as it was extremely nominal. I guess we call it weasel words. Kavanaugh also wrote in that same decision that bans on assault weapons would also fail the Heller test in the dissent.

Here is his dissent:

"Indeed, basic registration requirements are self evidently de minimis, for they are similar to other common registration or licensing schemes, such as those for voting or for driving a car, that cannot reasonably be considered onerous. Cf. Rosario v. Rockefeller, 410 U.S. 753, 754–58(1973) (law “requir[ing] a voter to enroll in the party of his choice at least 30 days before the general election in November in order to vote in the next subsequent party primary” does not violate First and Fourteenth Amendments because “if [the petitioners’] plight [could] be characterized as disenfranchisement at all, it was not caused by [the law], but by their own failure to take timely steps to effect their enrollment”); id. at 760 (“the State is certainly justified in imposing some reasonable cutoff point for registration or party enrollment, which citizens must meet in order to participate in the next election”);"

So in other words an LTC can be no more of an inconvenience than registering a car or registering to vote. I'd say we're 50 steps past that now.

DC circuit decision: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...c748525791f004d84f9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

Except the right to vote or drive is not in the constitution.

 

[mousegunfan]

The voting one makes a whole lot more sense. Though I don't believe in banning people from voting because they didn't pre-register, either; still, there are safeguards there.

Right to vote is not in the constitution. It gives states the power to make voting laws.

 

[Ghost 2A Cerakote]

Yep. "not thinking it through" is a problem.



That's a strawman. I never said anything like that.

For starters, "drugs" are not a crime, they don't hurt anyone who doesn't use them. Just like "guns" aren't a crime.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and call this attitude, "anti-freedom". They're people too, and are entitled to not have their rights trampled. And you're wrong. Forcing people to get a permission slip from the king to exercise a right seems a lot like "infringement". Or do you mean "not make the shit deeper"?

Sure, that's good. I agree. That's the opposite of "put people from other states in jail"



I have a good friend who says the exact same thing about guns. I'm sorry your experience has sucked so much, that's terrible. But that's not the same thing as "we should ban them" or "they're bad". I can't count the number of people I know who use drugs and have no problems at all. So, there's my anecdote.




Great! Does "guilty of copyright violation" count as "prohibited" in your world? It does in the world of .gov. You better be more specific, or you're hoovering up a huge number of people that pose no danger to themselves or anyone else with that statement




Again, unless you get a lot more specific, this would make felons of a lot of people who haven't hurt anyone. Transporting pot across state lines is a felony. Selling guns to non-felons who happen to live in a stupid state is a felony.

By advocating for those things as felonies, you're admitting that the laws making them so are reasonable. (hint: freedom says they're not)

I understand and respect your opinions...Seems like you could come up with better ideas than me. I'd love to hear ones that can realistically have possibilities.

I feel like no matter what is done someone is going to get the short stick in the situation regardless...

 

[Picton]

Right to vote is not in the constitution. It gives states the power to make voting laws.

Not sure if serious. States run elections, certainly, but the constitution's amendments are FAR from silent about the right to vote. They specifically establish the rights of ex-slaves, women, and 18-year-olds to vote. All of that is blackletter constitutional law. And SCOTUS has ruled scores of times on state elections, based on the Constitution's jurisdiction.

It's unquestionably a way better analog than a drivers' license, and that was my main point.

 

[Yazz]

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




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.



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




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.




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



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.



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.



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

I did not make up the stats.
This is not about race to me but about family values and the fact that we have enough gun laws.
Sorry you see race in it.
I guess I could omit facts.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

I did not make up the stats.
This is not about race to me but about family values and the fact that we have enough gun laws.
Sorry you see race in it.
I guess I could omit facts.

When I was a kid growing up the guns were in the closet and the ammunition was on the shelf above it and we didn’t have the kind of issues with guns that we do today.

We already have have too many gun laws. There is something fundamental in our society that has changed. Until that is addressed all the laws in the world won’t stop it. They only serve to punish the law abiding.

 

[Harry Christopher]

Be assured, they have tasted blood and will be back.

Now, we know what their wish list is.

Massachusetts House Speaker Mariano July 24, 2023“As you have heard me say many times, the Bruen decision fundamentally changed how courts review state gun laws and immediately jeopardized aspects of the laws that have made our Commonwealth a national leader in reducing gun violence. While the House’s commitment to pursuing a comprehensive update remains steadfast, a new legal landscape will be the greatest threat to those efforts.”

The new legal landscape is a sudden realization that the Constitution does in fact still matter even in today's highly divisive partisan political climate and the Supreme Court's interpretation of that document is still the law of the land despite the progressives questioning the court's inherent legitimacy.

I would like to think that the blood they have tasted stemmed from their having to bite down hard on their tongues when it became glaringly apparent that they were not going to be able to sneak this appalling impersonation and material misrepresentation of a legitimate piece of legislation. over the transom window in the wee hours of the dead of night.

I completely agree with your perspective that this is not the end of the fight to stand against the disarming of the law-abiding citizenry here in the People's Democratic Socialist Republic but this time I think there is a real discernable difference when this current fight against the abrogation of our Constitutional civil rights is compared to past efforts to battle against the same attempts to infringe on our rights.

The main difference is that there is now some decent case law backing the concept that individuals have a legal right to avail themselves of firearms to protect their families and themselves if they so choose that did not exist in times past. The tone that seems to emanate from between the lines of the Senate Majority Leader's and House Chairman's recent public pronouncements is one that is tacitly if not overtly acknowledging that not only has the lay of the national litigational landscape shifted beneath their very feet but just as importantly this entire exercise in legislative legerdemain has aroused a previous quiescent segment of the population who may have had past doubts about the effectiveness of protest against the might of the political machine on gun control issues now finding themselves rushing to man the ramparts in defense of their basic right to try to survive in a society where right and wrong are now considered antique values that are no longer of value in our daily personal interactions.

The House did not succeed in passing this grotesquely defective bill so that they could......see what was in it after passage.....because a great many individuals choose to stand up and say not on my watch Ronnie. The struggle is most assuredly not at a successful conclusion, but the Boston Elites have been put on notice that the days of attempting to run roughshod over the hopes, dreams and aspirations of the little people is truly at an end. We as a group need to monitor the situation closely and let these Beautiful People know in no uncertain terms that contrary to their past popular beliefs, we will in fact stand up and speak for the present and the future of all our citizens.

Be assured, they have tasted blood and will be back.

Now, we know what their wish list is.

 

[Yazz]

When I was a kid growing up the guns were in the closet and the ammunition was on the shelf above it and we didn’t have the kind of issues with guns that we do today.

We already have have too many gun laws. There is something fundamental in our society that has changed. Until that is addressed all the laws in the world won’t stop it. They only serve to punish the law abiding.

When I was in High School I was on the shooting team and carried my 22 rifle on the school bus to school. And that was in New Jersey.

 

[Spartan65]

I did not make up the stats.
This is not about race to me but about family values and the fact that we have enough gun laws.
Sorry you see race in it.
I guess I could omit facts.

Not trying to kiss ass because @Yazz is a plumber and as an electrican we are sworn enemies. But he hit the nail on the head here. It is 100% about the degradation of the nuclear family in this country and that has been pushed 100% by the left.

Sex without human consicenqnes is a problem. Sorry I know the libs of NES will be along shortly to attack me, they can GTFO. It’s true the family unit is the most important thing to a child’s development.

 

[milktree]

Not sure if serious. States run elections, certainly, but the constitution's amendments are FAR from silent about the right to vote. They specifically establish the rights of ex-slaves, women, and 18-year-olds to vote. All of that is blackletter constitutional law. And SCOTUS has ruled scores of times on state elections, based on the Constitution's jurisdiction.

It's unquestionably a way better analog than a drivers' license, and that was my main point.

I think the point is that nowhere in The Constitution does it say anyone has the right to vote. It says the right to vote cannot be denied or abridged because of [things]

There’s reference to a right to vote, but no actual text saying it. It’s well understood that the right exists, even though it’s not explicitly granted. The text assumes the right, and we all accept that.

This is why “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is so clear: it uses the same language and assumptions that apply to the right to vote.

 

[Coyote33]

Maybe… or maybe they vote quick at night. I don’t trust the speaker’s word.

Don’t count those chickens too fast.…..you might find an illegal alien next time you look. They are only asking, at least for now.

In new strategy, state asks locals to host unhoused, migrant families as officials scramble to expand shelters​

Massachusetts officials are seeking residents willing to host newly arrived families in need of shelter. Hosts are asked to provide a room or apartment for a few days, until longer-term accommodations can be arranged.
In new strategy, state asks locals to host unhoused, migrant families as officials scramble to expand shelters

I wonder if the Third would apply if the government decided that immigrants will be living in your spare room whether you like it or not? Or maybe that's a "taking" under the Eight?

Again, no. 3A specifies "soldiers" by specific term.

Look at some of those military aged young men and tell me that they aren't soldiers.

It's pretty clear that when they wrote "soldiers," they meant soldiers. Meaning, a standing army under their own government's control.

They are substituting foreigners and illegal immigrants for foot soldiers in this country to fight the war of putting this country into socialism/communism. They are basically mercenaries, paid for with our own taxes! They are at war with us. Mostly, we are not at war back with them. This needs to happen, among other things.

 

[Picton]

They are substituting foreigners and illegal immigrants for foot soldiers in this country to fight the war of putting this country into socialism/communism. They are basically mercenaries, paid for with our own taxes! They are at war with us. Mostly, we are not at war back with them. This needs to happen, among other things.

For the fourth and last time: 3A is about standing armies under the control of our own government. It isn't about foreign soldiers.

Lordy.

 

[Mesatchornug]

For the fourth and last time: 3A is about standing armies under the control of our own government. It isn't about foreign soldiers.

Lordy.

That's an interesting question, actually. If our government hired Academi, and put their agents in our homes, would that be outside 3A? It definitely feels like it should be covered. Similarly, if they brought in UN Peacekeepers, and garrisoned them in our homes, it shouldn't be a free play either...

 

[BigGreen2000]

They are substituting foreigners and illegal immigrants for foot soldiers in this country to fight the war of putting this country into socialism/communism. They are basically mercenaries, paid for with our own taxes! They are at war with us. Mostly, we are not at war back with them. This needs to happen, among other things.

Again, Cloward-Piven plan.