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

[milktree]

Crime?
Malum per se or malum prohibitum?
Malum per se - concur
Malum prohibitim - FYN!

Still way too broad-brush.

Should copyright violation strip you of your rights? Securities fraud? Shoplifting baby formula? There are lots of malum in se crimes (even a few felonies) that do not strip one of their second amendment rights, and a bunch of malum prohibitum ones that do. Add "violent" (including threat of violence) and you're getting closer.


(side nit: It's "malum in se", not "per se")

 

[VetteGirlMA]

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

Again I'm just pointing out what Kavanaugh said in Heller 2 which dealt with Heller having to jump through enormous hoops to get a license. He said that's not the correct way to regulate who gets a license. It should be no more difficult than applying to vote or registering a car. Minimal interaction was the key. You go into the RMV and 20 minutes later you walk out with an LTC. I don't agree with licensing since it gives states the opportunity to load it up on the back end (denied due to too many parking tickets for example) but I think and this just me taking an educated guess but it would survive constitutional scrutiny.

 

[Picton]

Again I'm just pointing out what Kavanaugh said in Heller 2 which dealt with Heller having to jump through enormous hoops to get a license. He said that's not the correct way to regulate who gets a license. It should be no more difficult than applying to vote or registering a car. Minimal interaction was the key. You go into the RMV and 20 minutes later you walk out with an LTC. I don't agree with licensing since it gives states the opportunity to load it up on the back end (denied due to too many parking tickets for example) but I think and this just me taking an educated guess but it would survive constitutional scrutiny.

Agreed. I believe it would. This is where the SCOTUS majority's libertarian belief in RKBA conflicts with some of that same majority's belief in good old-fashioned statism and control.

Where I think Kav messed up was in mentioning car registration at all. If he'd kept it with voter registration, he'd have had a constitutionally stronger argument.

 

[VetteGirlMA]

Agreed. I believe it would. This is where the SCOTUS majority's libertarian belief in RKBA conflicts with some of that same majority's belief in good old-fashioned statism and control.

Where I think Kav messed up was in mentioning car registration at all. If he'd kept it with voter registration, he'd have had a constitutionally stronger argument.

I just picture in my mind someone driving up to the RMV to get an LTC. Background check ok, everything else looks good. Oh wait a second you didn't file your taxes last year. Sorry you can't have an LTC right now due to non payment of taxes. Too many parking tickets, too many homeowners insurance claims, too many times the cops have been called to your house. They can add any kind of check in the backroom free from scrutiny. I wouldn't be surprised if it's happening right now.

 

[bigred460]

Agreed. I believe it would. This is where the SCOTUS majority's libertarian belief in RKBA conflicts with some of that same majority's belief in good old-fashioned statism and control.

Where I think Kav messed up was in mentioning car registration at all. If he'd kept it with voter registration, he'd have had a constitutionally stronger argument.

100% agree, huge mistake by Kav mentioning car registration.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Where I think Kav messed up was in mentioning car registration at all. If he'd kept it with voter registration, he'd have had a constitutionally stronger argument.

I wonder how long before we find that automobiles exist in the emanations and penumbras of free travel and 9A. If computers are protected by 1A, and 1911s by 2A, it doesn't seem a huge stretch. This doesn't mean you're guaranteed them, but you have protected access to them and their use - including on public ways. The whole "driving is a privilege" thing has always struck me as an artificial constraint. (Especially, when I learned this morning that 49 U.S.C. § 40103 explicitly protects "a public right of transit through the navigable airspace." I'm pretty sure there's similar protection for navigable waterways.)

 

[Junior314]

Unable to respond to specific folks for lack of time:

1) Full Auto is de facto, [Adverb: "in fact, or in effect, whether by right or not"] banned in MA. Despite @Mesatchornug 's helpful correction of my estimate up, by 291 to a total of 1,991 Machine Gun. licenses in MA. That's less than one half of one percent of MA firearms license holders. Every last licensee who could own one could fit in my yard for a BBQ. The point was correctly made that, with money, and living in the right town, for now, you can have a SAW in MA and that's correct and exactly my point and why, if we want to have blunted revisions to the MA AWB and 4420 Mk II, you have to negotiate. Smart people would negotiate so 'de facto' was no longer a pass for those wealthy enough to be different because when that happens, those wealthy enough get pissed off.

2) My derringer comment was a joke and I stand by my willingness to grant a pragmatic consrtaint on what 's too small to can carry (not own, carry) to 'throw them a bone' in exchange for improving the current legal landscape on what you can buy. The absurdity of "I want the right to carry full cap mags but I'll not win back that right in MA while trying to preserve my right to carry a two shot derringer is hilarious and sad. The crowd who mocks AIWB carry as a risk to blowing your nuts off wants to enshrine the right to pocket carry no drop safety, no trigger guard, can't hit $%^& aside your own femoral artery two shot pistols. But, fine, don't like my lower limit on size concession, propose other bones to throw them.

As to calling your rep and telling them you won't comply? You do you but that's even dumber than posting on a message board that you won't. Bluster is like brandishing only more comedic than intimidating and more provocative without the means to deliver when the bluff is called.

It's absolutely the case that a new bill will be floated, and pass come fall (or sooner). Unavoidable.

Wrong, broken, annoying AF, probably unconstitutional, completely ineffectual at reducing violence committed with guns in this state, expensive to implement, ineffably going to be challenged in court but.. Unavoidable.

And, the current MA laws are all those bad things plus: inscrutable by design ways that set the most compliant and law abiding up for error that can get them jammed up and in court.

So, since it sucks now, it's going to suck worse, you have three choices:

1) Risk very bad outcomes from non-compliance because yes, they already know enough of what you have to get you.
2) Inevitable failure to shape the new laws to any benefit because you insist on absolutism.
3) Maybe making changes that improve the situation for all of MA including most gun owners. (Sorry for those who currently tuck a Derringer.. someplace... for their EDC and sorry for the 1,991 Machine Gun license holders who are so #$%^7ing rich that no matter what the law says will be able to keep them anyway.)

Some things a new bill could get us:
- Guarantees with teeth for timely processing of applications and renawals.
- Removal of unequivocally dumb shit laws that prevent pistol carry while legally rifle hunting.
- The 'rosters'.
- Not having to weld crap onto perfectly good muzzles.

So, Ladies and Gentlemen of the "no negotiation" crowd, what would you 'trade' for those or do you want all the current turd laws hanging around and more crap on top of them? it's one or the other because we cannot stop all new bills. The court will not magic fairy wand MA into Texas flavored rock candy mountain of the north.

P.S. Things ain't gonna stay so rosey in Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire neither.

I despise gun owners like you more than I do full blown gun grabbers.

Your a sell out.

 

[Dennis in MA]

I did hear from my Rep yesterday. It was pretty personalized. She said I could send her as many emails on this as I wanted and she is pushing for this to be very open and public and she is listening to her constituents. Honestly - in mASS - that's more than I've ever received from a legislator.

Carol Doherty in Taunton. I don't trust her any further than I could throw her, but was pleasantly surprised.

And I still say "no quarter." The licensing and re-licensing goes far beyond the Bruen standards already. Gaining some sort of "guarantee" is not going to get us anything in teh long run. So losing something to gain something we're gonna get on a federal lawsuit is a waste of my time. I'm not going to negotiate. And I'm going to be MF clear on it with my legislators. I get where you are coming from SIGNES. I do. This isn't the time. Time to stand together and make a wall.

 

[Chappy7]

I did hear from my Rep yesterday. It was pretty personalized. She said I could send her as many emails on this as I wanted and she is pushing for this to be very open and public and she is listening to her constituents. Honestly - in mASS - that's more than I've ever received from a legislator.

Carol Doherty in Taunton. I don't trust her any further than I could throw her, but was pleasantly surprised.

And I still say "no quarter." The licensing and re-licensing goes far beyond the Bruen standards already. Gaining some sort of "guarantee" is not going to get us anything in teh long run. So losing something to gain something we're gonna get on a federal lawsuit is a waste of my time. I'm not going to negotiate. And I'm going to be MF clear on it with my legislators. I get where you are coming from SIGNES. I do. This isn't the time. Time to stand together and make a wall.

Yeah, she signed onto this pos

Ban military-style assault weapons | The Boston Globe

More than 350 people, many representing organizations with hundreds of thousands of members, call for a nationwide ban on military-style assault weapons.

apps.bostonglobe.com

 

[Grendizer138]

I despise gun owners like you more than I do full blown gun grabbers.

Your a sell out.

Most of us started off thinking the system was fair and our opponents were well-intentioned.

You learn quickly. This guy will too.

 

[Junior314]

Most of us started off thinking the system was fair and our opponents were well-intentioned.

You learn quickly. This guy will too.

I don’t think so.

I get the impression that he’s been doing this for awhile.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I did hear from my Rep yesterday. It was pretty personalized. She said I could send her as many emails on this as I wanted and she is pushing for this to be very open and public and she is listening to her constituents. Honestly - in mASS - that's more than I've ever received from a legislator.

Carol Doherty in Taunton. I don't trust her any further than I could throw her, but was pleasantly surprised.

And I still say "no quarter." The licensing and re-licensing goes far beyond the Bruen standards already. Gaining some sort of "guarantee" is not going to get us anything in teh long run. So losing something to gain something we're gonna get on a federal lawsuit is a waste of my time. I'm not going to negotiate. And I'm going to be MF clear on it with my legislators. I get where you are coming from SIGNES. I do. This isn't the time. Time to stand together and make a wall.

I am with you on this one. Carol Doherty

 

[Whutmeworry]

Yeah, she signed onto this pos

Ban military-style assault weapons | The Boston Globe

More than 350 people, many representing organizations with hundreds of thousands of members, call for a nationwide ban on military-style assault weapons.

apps.bostonglobe.com

Was I the only one who noticed the less-than-subtle declaration, within Rosenthal's declaration, that all mags should now be limited in capacity to no more than FIVE rounds???

 

[Grendizer138]

I don’t think so.

I get the impression that he’s been doing this for awhile.

Maybe. But 15 years ago I thought private transfers through an FFL (UBCs) were a good compromise. Now I think felons that just finished their sentence should be able to stop at Wahlgreens on the way home to buy an AR and a bag of weed.

 

[180 GRAIN FMJ]

I don’t think so.

I get the impression that he’s been doing this for awhile.

Yeah, he is either trolling us or is a plant from Day's office.

Regardless, adding him to your ignore list makes this thread much better.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Maybe. But 15 years ago I thought private transfers through an FFL (UBCs) were a good compromise. Now I think felons that just finished their sentence should be able to stop at Wahlgreens on the way home to buy an AR and a bag of weed.

Man, next meet up your first round is on me

 

[Ghost 2A Cerakote]

First define "illegal gun possession "
If it is anything less than a person adjudicated by a court to have lost their civil rights then f*** You No!

Yes, a person who is already prohibited under federal law and caught with a firearm.

Although I do believe there should be less of a list of things that make you prohibited.

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

Alot of crime fall under this wide blanket

Restraining orders

Shouldn't deprive your right


My buddy is prohibited because of his parents they section 12 his a$$. So because of something stupid like that his rights got stripped.

I do believe after a period you should get your rights restored. My dad is a prohibited person for a felony charge, but hasn't committed a crime since '89 so there should definitely be a time limitation on it.

Drugs - the government has no right to tell an adult what they can consume

recreational uses are fine but there has to be a line at what point has it gone to far.

Do I think that a innocent person partying who is using recreational drugs should be prohibited? No.

(1) The term "addict" means any individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare, or who is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.

Good example here : Hunter Biden

Violence - concur

Crime?

Violent crime, repeat violent offenders was the target.

Malum per se or malum prohibitum?
Malum per se - concur
Malum prohibitim - FYN!

Just because you are trying to help doesn't mean your methods are positive.
Take criticism with a critical eye and adjust appropriately.

If this is how you truly feel then why your previous comment about us commenting "in a negative way"
Big boy pants or go home.

I am a recent gun owner I've only had my permission slip for 3 years. I still feel like I'm doing better than @SIGNES

common ground - shall not be infringed
Pretty clear

If a person is too dangerous to be allowed arms they are too dangerous to be allowed in public

Agreed

See previous answer

other than content and purity standards the government shouldn't be in control of recreational use of drugs

Licenses - infringement

Licenses should not be a thing especially the fact that you have to pay for your right.

Storage requirements - infringement

Any gun owners should be able to store their firearms anyway they feel necessary.

Registration - infringement

Absolutely 100%

Bans on features or types - infringement

We should be able to buy whatever guns we want. And the government shouldn't be allowed to tell us what is "unsafe" to own.

Restrictions on place or manner of carry - infringement
And everything else they come up with.

Yes I don't believe anywhere should be a prohibited place. Our rights shouldn't end over any property lines

 

[Chappy7]

Was I the only one who noticed the less-than-subtle declaration, within Rosenthal's declaration, that all mags should now be limited in capacity to no more than FIVE rounds???

It was noticed.

 

[SIGNES]

Most of us started off thinking the system was fair and our opponents were well-intentioned.

You learn quickly. This guy will too.

I think the opponents are at the least clueless, sometimes malicious and usually captured.
I think (know) the system is unfair.

What those who find me so objectionable aren't getting is it's precisely because of those things, proactively engaging to let them declare victory George Bush style, while we preserve our rights as best we can is the only option.

"You can't negotiate with terrorists" is absolutely valid for everyone who isn't the person actually bound, gagged, on their knees moments from decapitation. Once you're the captive, (we, licensed gun owners) you damned skippy realize you need to negotiate.

When I first unlurked and started posting after reading the boards for a long time, I said this, got flamed Everybody said 'it's all going to get better after Bruen' but...Then 4420. Washington's B.S. and all sorts of other "Bruen Backlash" legislation started happening. I am not here to be 'right'. I can be right with peace and quiet. I'm here trying to get at least some of the folks here to consider working with GOAL to make legislation we can gag on, but not choke and die from.

Then when you've held some ground, you work with Comm2A, GOA etc. to sue to undo even that.

 

[freddieMA]

It was noticed.

new tshirt idea for fpc:

"you're not my mom"

 

[Mesatchornug]

I think the opponents are at the least clueless, sometimes malicious and usually captured.
I think (know) the system is unfair.

What those who find me so objectionable aren't getting is it's precisely because of those things, proactively engaging to let them declare victory George Bush style, while we preserve our rights as best we can is the only option.

"You can't negotiate with terrorists" is absolutely valid for everyone who isn't the person actually bound, gagged, on their knees moments from decapitation. Once you're the captive, (we, licensed gun owners) you damned skippy realize you need to negotiate.

When I first unlurked and started posting after reading the boards for a long time, I said this, got flamed Everybody said 'it's all going to get better after Bruen' but...Then 4420. Washington's B.S. and all sorts of other "Bruen Backlash" legislation started happening. I am not here to be 'right'. I can be right with peace and quiet. I'm here trying to get at least some of the folks here to consider working with GOAL to make legislation we can gag on, but not choke and die from.

Then when you've held some ground, you work with Comm2A, GOA etc. to sue to undo even that.

I'd rather work with GOAL to make legislation that protects human liberties, but I guess I'm old fashioned like that.

 

[mothybee]

It was noticed.

Probably a hop, skip and a jump away from outlawing revolvers too.

 

[SteelShooter]

Probably a hop, skip and a jump away from outlawing revolvers too.

well, that makes sense, revolvers are also super killy and they have Ghost 'Bullets' TM, so no forensics at the crime scenes, they are the worst.

 

[ddeck]

Probably a hop, skip and a jump away from outlawing revolvers too.

No one needs a gun that can hold 6 or even 7 rounds without reloading! /s

 

[PappyM3]

I think the opponents are at the least clueless, sometimes malicious and usually captured.
I think (know) the system is unfair.

What those who find me so objectionable aren't getting is it's precisely because of those things, proactively engaging to let them declare victory George Bush style, while we preserve our rights as best we can is the only option.

"You can't negotiate with terrorists" is absolutely valid for everyone who isn't the person actually bound, gagged, on their knees moments from decapitation. Once you're the captive, (we, licensed gun owners) you damned skippy realize you need to negotiate.

When I first unlurked and started posting after reading the boards for a long time, I said this, got flamed Everybody said 'it's all going to get better after Bruen' but...Then 4420. Washington's B.S. and all sorts of other "Bruen Backlash" legislation started happening. I am not here to be 'right'. I can be right with peace and quiet. I'm here trying to get at least some of the folks here to consider working with GOAL to make legislation we can gag on, but not choke and die from.

Then when you've held some ground, you work with Comm2A, GOA etc. to sue to undo even that.

Haven’t we given the legislature enough wins the past few decades? If those weren’t wins for the legislature, then what good was it to lose our rights then?

They want more wins? What?! Impossible!

Next thing you’re going to tell me is that it’s totally reasonable for us to go down to 5 round magazine limits… just so we only gag, instead of choke.

There are plenty of gun laws on the books. In fact, too many. Not one inch more should we willingly give up.

They want o shoot the for the moon? Let them. We’ll see them in court.

And you claim that the Bruen decision did not help us because it led to a his proposed bill. But we haven’t even used Bruen precedent to challenge anything in court yet, so who are you to say it didn’t help? The legislatures can do whatever tantrums they want. It doesn’t mean it will stick.

 

[Goliathan]

I think the opponents are at the least clueless, sometimes malicious and usually captured.
I think (know) the system is unfair.

What those who find me so objectionable aren't getting is it's precisely because of those things, proactively engaging to let them declare victory George Bush style, while we preserve our rights as best we can is the only option.

"You can't negotiate with terrorists" is absolutely valid for everyone who isn't the person actually bound, gagged, on their knees moments from decapitation. Once you're the captive, (we, licensed gun owners) you damned skippy realize you need to negotiate.

When I first unlurked and started posting after reading the boards for a long time, I said this, got flamed Everybody said 'it's all going to get better after Bruen' but...Then 4420. Washington's B.S. and all sorts of other "Bruen Backlash" legislation started happening. I am not here to be 'right'. I can be right with peace and quiet. I'm here trying to get at least some of the folks here to consider working with GOAL to make legislation we can gag on, but not choke and die from.

Then when you've held some ground, you work with Comm2A, GOA etc. to sue to undo even that.

You are fundamentally misreading the nature of the relationship. You cannot "negotiate" this way with someone whose endgame is your destruction.

There is no circumstance where "giving up" something to the opposition will satisfy them. They'll take it and laugh in your face, and still come for the rest. The anti set aren't interested in compromise, and despite their claims to the contrary, they are not really interested in reducing violent crime, either. They are interested in your complete disarmament and reinforcing the government monopoly on force.

That doesn't mean you slam the door shut and refuse to sit at the table to mitigate damage. GOAL has for years been trying to pass positive legislation as well as heading off bad legislation. They hold their noses and build professional relationships even with people whose positions they find abhorrent. But you always go into these things with a full understanding of the dynamic. Proactively offering to give up "just a few" rights in exchange for the hope of leniency from the attackers is just bad strategy.

Everybody said 'it's all going to get better after Bruen' but...Then 4420.

It HAS gotten better in most of the country, and even here to a lesser degree. GOAL said very publicly when Bruen happened that there would be temper tantrums, and there have been, particularly in the six states that got slapped down. This is ours. Ultimately, Bruen was, for any rational watcher of these things, the beginning of the fight, not the end.

 

[PappyM3]

For anybody reading SIGNES’ “political strategy” theories, remember that this isn’t some budgetary dispute between politicians, where an actual compromise can be had. This is an actual legislative war on us, with the ultimate goal of disarmament. No amount of “letting them feel like they won” is going to get us anything but further incremental oppression. They won’t just stop and say “gee, they really gave us what we wanted so we won’t go for more restrictions next year”.

Each legislative session they will have an opportunity to redefine what is “a reasonable restriction”. And if we follow SIGNES’ political gamesmanship ideas, we let them do that.

 

[IPSC_DRL]

I think thats the overton window effect, you say they're legal, which they are, but only after jumping through all the hoops the PRM puts out there. The next step will be they'll all be gone because they are not 'commonly in use'. Thats the plan.

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that one.


I think I have Anderson windows.............................

 

[HARRYM]

For anybody reading SIGNES’ “political strategy” theories, remember that this isn’t some budgetary dispute between politicians, where an actual compromise can be had. This is an actual legislative war on us, with the ultimate goal of disarmament. No amount of “letting them feel like they won” is going to get us anything but further incremental oppression. They won’t just stop and say “gee, they really gave us what we wanted so we won’t go for more restrictions next year”.

Each legislative session they will have an opportunity to redefine what is “a reasonable restriction”. And if we follow SIGNES’ political gamesmanship ideas, we let them do that.

Indeed It's why Franklin said it's a Republic if you can keep it and always referred a Democracy as 2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

 

[ruger71]

Posted on a different forum:
Attended the meeting at Whitinsville Fish and Game Club
last night and the the representatives and senators present made it very clear that we need to fight harder. We need to keep on our senators and reps with personal letters Not Form Letters and that a statehouse rally on a day they are in session would be very educational for educating those politicians that have no clue what they are voting on.
We also need to rally in other progressive cities. The anti gunners rally and they get heard so we need to fight the same way only harder