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

[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

We need to keep pushing harder!!

 

[Goliathan]

We need to keep pushing harder!!

They are likely counting on our complacency.

 

[nin8888nin]

I wonder if Day or any of the morons really thinks HD 4420 would have prevented this in Chicago

Chicago boy, 14, accused of 7 armed robberies in less than an hour
Chicago boy, 14, accused of 7 armed robberies in less than an hour

 

[Toast]

The other side will not accept any limitations on their wishes. Take, for example, an upcoming paper in the Notre Dame Law Review from a pair of professors:

"Here, we suggest an unlikely source of continuing power, after Bruen, for states to disarm individuals they deem dangerous: qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields state officers from monetary liability for many constitutional violations. In short, unless a previous case “clearly established,” with high factual particularity, that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional, the officer does not pay. Thus, a state law enforcement officer may, after Bruen, confiscate an individual’s firearm if the officer deems that person too dangerous to possess it. The officer’s justifications may conflict with the federal courts’ understanding of Bruen or the Second Amendment—perhaps flagrantly. But unless a previous, authoritative legal decision examining near-identical facts says so, the officer risks no liability. And because each individual act of disarmament will be unique, such prior decisions will be vanishingly rare. The result is a surprisingly free hand for states to determine who should and should not be armed, even in contravention of the Supreme Court’s dictates."​

Qualified Immunity as Gun Control

The Supreme Court’s ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen threw the political project of gun regulation into question. Before Bruen, states could enact new kinds of gun res

papers.ssrn.com

 

[milktree]

The other side will not accept any limitations on their wishes. Take, for example, an upcoming paper in the Notre Dame Law Review from a pair of professors:

"Here, we suggest an unlikely source of continuing power, after Bruen, for states to disarm individuals they deem dangerous: qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields state officers from monetary liability for many constitutional violations. In short, unless a previous case “clearly established,” with high factual particularity, that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional, the officer does not pay. Thus, a state law enforcement officer may, after Bruen, confiscate an individual’s firearm if the officer deems that person too dangerous to possess it. The officer’s justifications may conflict with the federal courts’ understanding of Bruen or the Second Amendment—perhaps flagrantly. But unless a previous, authoritative legal decision examining near-identical facts says so, the officer risks no liability. And because each individual act of disarmament will be unique, such prior decisions will be vanishingly rare. The result is a surprisingly free hand for states to determine who should and should not be armed, even in contravention of the Supreme Court’s dictates."​

Qualified Immunity as Gun Control

The Supreme Court’s ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen threw the political project of gun regulation into question. Before Bruen, states could enact new kinds of gun res

papers.ssrn.com

You’d think those clowns would understand the danger and harm of qualified immunity.

 

[Mesatchornug]

You’d think those clowns would understand the danger and harm of qualified immunity.

They're still in the honeymoon phase where the enforcers can be trusted to be on their side.

 

[alan226]

Yes.

Do you comprehend how temporary that could turn out to be?

Have you noticed states flat out ignoring SCOTUS on election districting and how a whole buncha nothing is happening?

Have you been following this thread and noticing the smarter of the absolutist folks pointing out the lingering gaps in Bruen and that Heller (2008) did precisely bupkis to improve the laws in MA?

Do you comprehend that even if what you suggest has SOME merit it won't end there?

We are dealing with a group that wants it all on THEIR terms. If you think that the left will stop with a "compromise" and say OK," we're satisfied. We'll stop now".
If you do, I have some swampland to sell you.

As others have said, todays compromise is tomorrow's loophole that must closed. It won't end until all we have left is a single shot bolt action .22

 

[Mesatchornug]

As others have said, todays compromise is tomorrow's loophole that must closed. It won't end until all we have left is the memory of a single shot bolt action .22

FIFY

 

[Broc Tuah]

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

Your a sell out.

SIGNES is an idiot. Only reason I don't block him is for the comedy of his posts.

You can tell by his comments he has ZERO understanding of history or how politics works.

He should go work for the NRA, they love his kind over there.

 

[groundscrapers]

@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.

If you want a SAW and you have a green card just say the word. I know I could source a tranny by the end of the week.

 

[groundscrapers]

the reality is this bill needs to be passed in its shittiest of forms. It will stand the best chance of receiving an injunction and then just wither away in the courts for years.

 

[Ron Jablonski]

the reality is this bill needs to be passed in its shittiest of forms. It will stand the best chance of receiving an injunction and then just wither away in the courts for years.

I disagree, it needs to be killed now.

 

[sieveboy]

The other side will not accept any limitations on their wishes. Take, for example, an upcoming paper in the Notre Dame Law Review from a pair of professors:

"Here, we suggest an unlikely source of continuing power, after Bruen, for states to disarm individuals they deem dangerous: qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields state officers from monetary liability for many constitutional violations. In short, unless a previous case “clearly established,” with high factual particularity, that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional, the officer does not pay. Thus, a state law enforcement officer may, after Bruen, confiscate an individual’s firearm if the officer deems that person too dangerous to possess it. The officer’s justifications may conflict with the federal courts’ understanding of Bruen or the Second Amendment—perhaps flagrantly. But unless a previous, authoritative legal decision examining near-identical facts says so, the officer risks no liability. And because each individual act of disarmament will be unique, such prior decisions will be vanishingly rare. The result is a surprisingly free hand for states to determine who should and should not be armed, even in contravention of the Supreme Court’s dictates."​

Qualified Immunity as Gun Control

The Supreme Court’s ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen threw the political project of gun regulation into question. Before Bruen, states could enact new kinds of gun res

papers.ssrn.com

THAT'S NOT REAL, IS IT?

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The other side will not accept any limitations on their wishes. Take, for example, an upcoming paper in the Notre Dame Law Review from a pair of professors:

"Here, we suggest an unlikely source of continuing power, after Bruen, for states to disarm individuals they deem dangerous: qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields state officers from monetary liability for many constitutional violations. In short, unless a previous case “clearly established,” with high factual particularity, that the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional, the officer does not pay. Thus, a state law enforcement officer may, after Bruen, confiscate an individual’s firearm if the officer deems that person too dangerous to possess it. The officer’s justifications may conflict with the federal courts’ understanding of Bruen or the Second Amendment—perhaps flagrantly. But unless a previous, authoritative legal decision examining near-identical facts says so, the officer risks no liability. And because each individual act of disarmament will be unique, such prior decisions will be vanishingly rare. The result is a surprisingly free hand for states to determine who should and should not be armed, even in contravention of the Supreme Court’s dictates."​

Qualified Immunity as Gun Control

The Supreme Court’s ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen threw the political project of gun regulation into question. Before Bruen, states could enact new kinds of gun res

papers.ssrn.com

2 tyrant scum

Guha Krishnamurthi​

University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law

Peter Salib​

University of Houston Law Center

 

[Horatio Alger Jr]

I wonder if Day or any of the morons really thinks HD 4420 would have prevented this in Chicago

Chicago boy, 14, accused of 7 armed robberies in less than an hour
Chicago boy, 14, accused of 7 armed robberies in less than an hour

Chicago? Hell, I wonder if he thought HD.4420 would have stopped this in Worcester

Street re-opened after reported shooting in Worcester; witness describes scene

Police had blocked off at least a three-block stretch of Park Avenue in Worcester Wednesday due to what at least one officer on the scene described as a reported shooting.

www.masslive.com

 

[TJ4]

2 tyrant scum

Guha Krishnamurthi​

University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law

Peter Salib​

University of Houston Law Center

So by that rationale, since an officer “does not pay” for violating civil rights, he’s free to completely disavow the Constitution? He can beat people for speaking freely? Force unlawful searches on them? No longer need to read Miranda rights? Shoot first and ask questions later? All because of a broad interpretation of unbridled powers for someone with QI?

 

[Woodsloafer]

SIGNES is an idiot. Only reason I don't block him is for the comedy of his posts.

You can tell by his comments he has ZERO understanding of history or how politics works.

He should go work for the NRA, they love his kind over there.

He's already got a job as one of Day's staff.

 

[groundscrapers]

I disagree, it needs to be killed now.

that would be the only acceptable alternative. If it appears to be some sort of compromised bill I think maintaining a position of damages would be harder to get for an injunction.

 

[pastera]

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")

Thanks for the correction - posted pre coffee and from my phone
Fingers engaged but brain not started

 

[Toast]

THAT'S NOT REAL, IS IT?

Sadly, yes, it is.

 

[Toast]

So by that rationale, since an officer “does not pay” for violating civil rights, he’s free to completely disavow the Constitution? He can beat people for speaking freely? Force unlawful searches on them? No longer need to read Miranda rights? Shoot first and ask questions later? All because of a broad interpretation of unbridled powers for someone with QI?

Under that theory, he only has unbridled powers where there is not an existing case stating that a particular conduct is unconstitutional. The paper posits that since 2A law is relatively free from binding precedents under Bruen et al, officers can create their own unique reasons for confiscating a firearm and be free from consequences that time, assuming the victim decides to pay to pursue the case. If not, free ride for others to repeat his actions.

QI is a steaming pile of garbage to start with. This just lets it rot in the sun even more.

And it's another data point for "They don't want compromise".

 

[allen-1]

 

[graphite]

I think the opponents are at the least clueless, sometimes malicious and usually captured......

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.
........ 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.

In my estimation, your approach, if it was ever viable, has long outlived its usefulness.

In the present climate, I prefer this approach, almost 80 years old now and delivered on the eve of the D-Day invasion:

 

[Retired-LEO]

 

[Mass-diver]

That was fun.

Now do private aircraft.

Then do owning a Bentley or Ferrari, or an in-ground pool, or a horse, or a condo in Boston (or a house on Martha's Vineyard)

All of those are "de facto" banned for the same reasons: cost.

There's not that much different about Mass. and MGs than other states, other than the requirement to have a MG licence. MGs are expensive everywhere, not just Mass., because there's limited supply resulting from the Hughes amendment to FOPA. But even outside of that, if you want one, you can set up an FFL07 and make or buy new ones; you just can't sell them to anyone who isn't also an FFL07 (or government)

If you want one, and are willing to spend the money, you can have one.

People just chose not to because they'd rather spend money on other things like a bigger house or a nicer car or whatever.

The only truthy part of your statement is that not all towns will issue MG licences to common people.

Your last line is the key point. My town is no MGs, feels like a ban to me?

 

[Picton]

that would be the only acceptable alternative. If it appears to be some sort of compromised bill I think maintaining a position of damages would be harder to get for an injunction.

I think the best options for us are...

1. Defeat of anything before it even gets to a vote. Rinse and repeat as the courts decimate other states' overreaches.
2. Passage of a completely egregious and draconian bill. This will fast-track us into court. That is desirable, IMO.
3-9. A bunch of other unknown parliamentary bullshit.
10. Passage of a bill crafty enough to infringe a little bit while not attracting an injunction.

In other words, a compromised bill is A WHOLE LOT worse than what Day was suggesting this month. I suspect a lot of NESers would be quite happy with #10, which troubles me.

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

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.

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

Wait just today I order some Safariland Comp II speedloaders, are you guys saying I may be in possession of the bumpstocks of the future?

Perhaps someone here can negotiate it so I can keep my revolver if I plug three holes in the cylinder!

 

[groundscrapers]

Your last line is the key point. My town is no MGs, feels like a ban to me?

I thought as long as you checked the boxes they had to issue it.

 

[SteelShooter]

Wait just today I order some Safariland Comp II speedloaders, are you guys saying I may be in possession of the bumpstocks of the future?

Perhaps someone here can negotiate it so I can keep my revolver if I plug three holes in the cylinder!

I have some extra wooden blocks from my shotgun, to keep from loading more than 3 rounds.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

The court doesn't have an army, by design.

Army? Just a letter to the state AG's office.

We ruled on this. Cut the shit etc..

Thank You
Have a Great Day