jaypap
NES Member
Time to organize a 2A Rally at the State House in September.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/Pioneer Valley Arms February Giveaway ***Smith & Wesson SD9VE 9MM***
Massachusetts Bill HD.4420 "An act to modernize gun Laws"
- Thread starter stinx
- Start date
I've felt so welcomed by such quality insults as "gay and retarded" that I am actually gonna go green.
Who can pass up an opportunity for such an immersive reliving of the muffled sound of similar insults whimpered from kids stuffed neatly into their lockers by the cool kids?
I'm sorry, you didnt embolden half of your statement so I'm not sure I understand
OK. What's your point?
There is no ban, because anyone can have one if they're willing to spend the money. Period.
Restricted? Sure. Pain in the ass? Yep. Unfair? Absolutely.
But the reality is that anyone can get a MG if they're willing to jump through the right hoops. Sometimes "the right hoops" include "move to a different town."
And by continuing to call it a "ban" it cheapens the concept to the point of mockery.
"some towns are shitty and won't issue MG licences" is absolutely true. But that's not the same thing as "Banned in Massachusetts."
Supressors/silencers are actually prohibited by law in Mass, so that's a better argument. (even though you can still have them if you go the FFL07/SOT route, I think)
M60
NES Member
Going green is easy. Stuffing members neatly into their lockers because you think your one of the cool kids, not so easy, but by all means, give it a go. Show us what you've got.
pastera
NES Member
Personally owning a preban item is not the standard.
And if your use of deadly force was clearly lawful the chance of a dubious add on for an ambiguous preban is very likely extremely low. Prosecutors don't like losses and a battle of experts on magazine identification is much more likely to be won on the pro 2a side (assuming competent representation and funding).
No one likes to be treated like an idiot and telling a jury that a person who legitimately had to defend themselves that they need to put the victim in jail for a reading of the law that has been discounted in case law multiple times across the country (Mass AWB is a carbon copy of the expired Federal law bringing with it all of the case law pertaining to the meaning of each part)
pastera
NES Member
What do you think all of the calls and letters are?
How about the national attention from proven advocacy groups?
Nothing in your enumerated list requires giving up ground, which you ARE advocating for.
Horatio Alger Jr
NES Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2023
- Messages
- 2,049
- Likes
- 6,752
Continuation of the AWB. The Massachusetts roster, Consumer Protection Regulation, suppressor ban, transaction portal (registry), magazine size limit, lifetime license to 5 year renewal, etc.
Those are all negotiations (as you put it) over the years. Was HD.4420 their way of saying "they won"?
Have you not learned from history?
Seems to me, negotiating your rights away let's them make you believe YOU WON.
Last edited:
Horatio Alger Jr
NES Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2023
- Messages
- 2,049
- Likes
- 6,752
I am confused why you are even here then?
Which blue/purple states has it ever been tried before?
No, it was a massive gamble and the anti crowd didn’t have enough votes. I’m sure those congressmen who said they’d vote for it with a sunset clause got some sort of pet project vote in return though.
We only lucked out because of the makeup of Congress in 2004.
Yeah, but you’re not asking for a lot. Our opponents are. And really we’re talking about how the Overton window changes the public perception of what is reasonable. It has absolutely functioned this way in the gun debate since the 1980s.
If you bold more random words it will give your arguement more validity.
We all are.
mothybee
NES Member
But how did he recognise you with those glasses?He knows my real name
mothybee
NES Member
I'd say the LO exception...Done.
“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it.“
Learned Hand
Learned Hand
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Seriously who cares? Maybe instead the republican party would actually run candidates instead of not running any candidates. Last election for state house, the choice for me was between far left and far left. There was no republican candidate, no libertarian candidate, nothing. The people in congress here in western ma run unopposed term after term after term. When there is an opposing candidate it's token resistance. The republican party just like the NRA has abandoned Massachusetts long ago and instead they're hanging out in red states and keeping their red states red. This is why the republican party is a straight up failure. The only focus is getting big dollar donations from the military-industrial complex and supporting endless wars. They'll convince Cleetus in the trailer park that war is good by saying 'that's a might pretty ar15 you got their son. have fun with your boom stick'. The problem they have right now is Biden co-opted them and became the war monger in the same way that Trump stole the dems playbook in 2016.
Conservatives can be their own worst enemy and the left is always motivated, ready to protest at a moments notice, they don't care if they get arrested because there are no consequences and the conservatives are sitting on twitter writing tweets in support of slavery and don't do anything.
Democrats are opportunists. They don't want guns to go away because they won't have anything to run. There won't be any need for them any longer and they'll get voted out of office and that scares them more than staring down the barrel of an AR15. Both parties are an enormous sh*t sandwich and come with so much baggage I don't see how anyone can support either party.
You have to renew now but they can jerk you around as much as they like. Fix that, let them talk about how "we background check every five years and every time they buy a gun!" because it's a PR win for them that actually improves on the mess now (ambiguities about receipts, or not, submit your renewal, but wait who knows how long to probably get it) for us.
We have an AWB now. 4420 was worse, by far than even Maura's 2016 tantrum. Negotiate one that's only law, not temper tantrum inventions, Avoid some of the 4420 hellscape and win back some of the complete idiocy in the current ban in the process. 4420, among it's countless other problems made the MA AWB a single feature test.
I'm not going to restate everything. If you read 4420, look at the current law, look at how things actually are now, actually read the potential concessions I suggested but surely don't want, a negotiation can incrementally reduce the suck, and give them what they really need most which are 'We did it!" press releases.
4420 was the worst gun grab in MA history and we got a reprieve not because they listened to us about our rights but because they were forced to confront the incompetence of the language of the document vs the 'summary' and enough of them got pissed off Day was trying to game them. It paused because Day didn't manage them well. Cooler more conniving heads will take over now. We're going get a new bill written by competent lawyers, it will pass.
It will be a lot more like 4420 than the current law and they will find a million new ways to $%^& us, unless we participate in a way that lets them get a PR win with less worry for them over a court and protest fight but overall reduces our current pain.
They don’t want a press release.
They want to take away guns. They want you disarmed. What’s your solution 3 years from now after your “watered down” version has passed and they come back for more.
What are you willing to give up then? And then 3 years later?
How about a PR win and a real win for us and get it stopped completely?
I can't imagine living life with such a losing mindset
HARRYM
NES Member
Well for criss sakes what idiot would use his/her real name here.....wait....oh damn it.....never mind.......
i think you're making an unwarranted assumption here: that this bill wasn't written by competent lawyers. i presume it was, and that the effects are not accidents, but intentional. this is what bloomberg level money gets you.
look at the forest, not the structure of blades of grass.
you should understand that something like 4420 is a blueprint for next steps, not the last step, and your job in response is not to prune a few leaves at the tips, but to lop entire branches off, until all that's left is a bare trunk and it's time to grind out the roots and plant grass over the hole.
remove their freedom to act against our own freedom, and our rights are the first class civil rights they were meant to be.
Why aren't you a member here?
The reasons I say it wasn't was some specific errors. I can't recall them off the top of my head but they were bozo level copy edit problems. I literally side by sided it with the sections of law it amended and it wasn't 'tangle them up in court vague' it was "How did this not get caught, they'll get hung up" bozo.
Again, dude, you don't get it: you might have a point, if the other side was coming into your hypothetical "negotiation" in good faith. But they're not. They're not interested in "a PR win" nor in an any "'we did it!' press releases." They are interested in disarming you. Completely. They are interested in ending firearms possession and commerce in Massachusetts.
Until you understand that, you're dancing to their tune. Just as they want you to. I choose not to do that.
Note I bolded some of my words arbitrarily. So you'd feel welcomed.
Harry Christopher
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2023
- Messages
- 425
- Likes
- 1,728
During the course of the last few years Defund The Police and Disarm The Citizenry shouted at the top of one's lungs was considered the avant-garde cutting edge of social engineering. The Social Justice Warriors driving this public policy debate of course do not themselves live in the inner cities of major urban areas where implementation and execution of these radical policies would have the most adverse effects. If they had to confront the predictable results of actually reducing the police presence and restricting the codified right of the citizens to be armed,if they so choose to do so, then one can be forgiven for thinking that the SJW definition of what is reasonable might in itself undergo a rather dramatic sea change. Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City spring to mind as glaring examples of what enacting these sorts of public policies will actually entail in the rest of the real world.Which blue/purple states has it ever been tried before?
No, it was a massive gamble and the anti crowd didn’t have enough votes. I’m sure those congressmen who said they’d vote for it with a sunset clause got some sort of pet project vote in return though.
We only lucked out because of the makeup of Congress in 2004.
Yeah, but you’re not asking for a lot. Our opponents are. And really we’re talking about how the Overton window changes the public perception of what is reasonable. It has absolutely functioned this way in the gun debate since the 1980s.
I have tried to emphasis in the many emails that I have sent to the state Senate and House that Disarming Law-abiding Citizens will have absolutely no positive discernable effect on the amelioration of the fundamentals underpinning the actual causes behind crime itself. What it will do is substantially increase the potential pool of future victims because the criminals will know that citizens of the Republic are severely restricted by legislative fiat from their ability to access the necessary tools required to provide for the protection of their families and themselves.
Having already been the victims of crime here in the Republic we are not prepared to accept having our choice to defend ourselves further hampered more than it already is at the present time by the enaction of more unreasonable criteria for the exercise of what we view as perhaps the most important Constitutional civil right that we have in a world gone mad.
Gaslighting the public has become a favored method of the Disarm The Citizenry school of public policy and the house of the public is quickly filling up with gas to the point where life itself is endangered. It is our hope that our very public and persistent opposition to any further erosion of our civil rights will serve to open the window as it were and let some of the noxious gas dissipate out into the atmosphere so that we have a realistic opportunity to live out our lives in peace on our own terms.
In the cold, sterile light of dawn it all comes down to a simple choice. In the face of a criminal threat does one lie down upon the floor and curl up in the fetal position pleading for mercy or does one stand upon their hind legs, look the threat straight in the eyes and say to the criminal..... not in my house..... today..... or ever?
The time for "Reasonable Negotiation" passed a generation ago. We refuse to continence any further erosion of our civil rights. The problem has always been.......is presently.....and always will be the criminal not us.
Well, aside from the warm welcome, I just hadn't gotten around to it, to be completely hones, because I don't use PayPal (and you shouldn't either but that's a whole other discussion but, seriously, $%^& PayPal) and hadn't gotten around to stuffing some cash in an envelope.
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
Arm yourself with the facts and then get in front of them. Lobbying face to face works. And in case they forget, do it often over and over. They know what's in Bruen, they're not stupid. It's just the end game, the death throes of the prohibition era coming to an end.
Of course they won't negotiate in good faith. Have you ever sat in a conference room for months on end working with an army of lawyers? It's never a good faith process. It's a verbal knife fight but that doesn't mean negotiations don't work.
Thanks for the bolding! I feel the love!
![[devil]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/015.gif "Devil [devil]")
OnTheRoad
NES Member
How has actual compromise worked out so far?
On one paragraph they want democracy.Liberal profs urge Biden to defy ‘mistaken’ rulings by ‘MAGA’ Supreme Court Justices
By
Isabel Keane
July 24, 2023
Liberal profs urge Biden to defy ‘mistaken’ rulings by ‘MAGA’ Supreme Court justices
“A President who disagrees with a court’s interpretation of the Constitution should offer and then follow an alternative interpretation,” the two professors wrote in a letter to Joe Bid…nypost.com
Professors urge Biden to defy 'mistaken' rulings by 'MAGA' Supreme Court Justices
July 23, 2023 9:26pm EDT
Professors urge Biden to defy 'mistaken' rulings by 'MAGA' Supreme Court justices
Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and political scientist Aaron Belkin penned a letter calling on President Biden to sidestep recent Supreme Court rulings.www.foxnews.com
EXCERPT FROM ABOVE REFERENCED ARTICLE
Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin penned "An Open Letter to the Biden Administration on Popular Constitutionalism" to respond to what Biden has called "not a normal court" following high-profile cases.
"We urge President Biden to restrain MAGA justices immediately by announcing that if and when they issue rulings that are based on gravely mistaken interpretations of the Constitution that undermine our most fundamental commitments, the Administration will be guided by its own constitutional interpretations," they wrote.
The letter continued, "We have worked diligently over the past five years to advocate Supreme Court expansion as a necessary strategy for restoring democracy. Although we continue to support expansion, the threat that MAGA justices pose is so extreme that reforms that do not require Congressional approval are needed at this time, and advocates and experts should encourage President Biden to take immediate action to limit the damage."
Tushnet and Belkin cited a solution known as "popular constitutionalism" and said "that courts do not exercise exclusive authority over constitutional meaning." They theorized that Biden could explain how the Supreme Court’s decisions are "egregiously wrong" and offer an alternative constitutional interpretation, particular if the ruling poses a "grave threat."
"In this particular historical moment, MAGA justices pose a grave threat to our most fundamental commitments because they rule consistently to undermine democracy and to curtail fundamental rights, and because many of their rulings are based on misleading and untrue claims," they wrote.
George Washington University law professor and legal expert Jonathan Turley penned an op-ed for The Hill on Saturday that warned about this interpretation of the Constitution.
"What is most striking about these professors is how they continue to claim they are defenders of democracy yet seek to use unilateral executive authority to defy the courts and, in cases like the tuition forgiveness and affirmative action, the majority of the public. They remain the privileged elite of academia, declaring their values as transcending both constitutional and democratic processes," Turley wrote.
He added, "In other words, they are calling for Biden to declare himself the final arbiter of what the Constitution means and to exercise unilateral executive power without congressional approval. He is to become a government unto himself."
END EXCERPT
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY is not the ONLY legal concept that the so called progressive left wing of the political spectrum wish to redefine......they want to literally make up their very own legal interpretations of what the Constitution means and apply their definitions and "understandings" to the entire country as a whole in the form of legally binding dictates all in the name of ......as they say..... saving democracy.
We have seen this overall approach to governing in the recent past on a worldwide stage......the National Fascist Party in Italy (1921-1943) and National Socialist German Workers' Party in Germany (1920-1945). Both political constricts were solely predicated upon the foundation of a dictator ruling their country thru the good offices of a compliant supporting political party structure. Opposing points of view were quickly and efficiently curtailed thru the conscientious application of violent retribution towards the heretical social strata of disbelievers via the medium of the organs of the state.
Fascism is usually associated with some form of political expression or opinion that is pointedly attributed to individuals who are pejoratively classified as belonging to the "right" wing of a political cohort. Interestingly I find the following practical definitions of fascism to include....... "extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behavior" and "very intolerant or domineering views or practices in a particular area".
This whole progressive left-wing idea of essentially doing away with a Supreme Court as an institutional final arbitrator of what exactly does in fact constitute the meaning of the Constitution certainly strikes me as going quite a ways towards meeting the definitions of Fascism as they are presently defined. You may note that this political perspective is emanating from an intolerant left-wing and NOT from the right-wing which is always referred to as the nurturing birthplace of fascism.
And speaking of the left-wing liberals attempting an end run around this country's hallowed institutions do you recall this golden oldie which we now present for your dining and dancing pleasure:
This Is How FDR Tried to Pack the Supreme Court
When his New Deal legislation kept getting struck down, FDR proposed a law targeting justices over the age of 70.
This Is How FDR Tried to Pack the Supreme Court | HISTORY
When his New Deal legislation kept getting struck down, FDR proposed a law targeting justices over the age of 70.www.history.com
EXCERPT
But in the late 1930s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted to put restrictions on the court when it came to age. Largely seen as a political ploy to change the court for favorable rulings on New Deal legislation, the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, commonly referred to as the “court-packing plan,” was Roosevelt’s attempt to appoint up to six additional justices to the Supreme Court for every justice older than 70 years, 6 months, who had served 10 years or more.
END EXCERPT
I guess that this just goes to empirically demonstrate that everything old is new again during today's tumultuous political milieu. Biden did say at the beginning of this administration that he had designs to be historically viewed as being in the company of FDR and his attacks on the Supreme Court would certainly be in keeping with FDR's approach to governance when things did not go his way. If nothing else the focus on the Supreme Court proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Democrats have certainly not forgotten their much-revered past history and, in point of fact, worship at the altar of that same history as a sacrosanct political polar star capable of providing command guidance to them during times of uncharted political upheaval.......upheaval as seen from their perspective and definition of course.
There is a belief in some quarters, here in the Back of Beyond.....where men are men....women are women.....and the animals don't really care either way.....that certain members of the ruling class of Beautiful People would most assuredly benefit from....and we would as well.....if they invested a modicum of their precious time studying the actual history of this edifice called the United States of America pursuant to what in fact are this country's political foundations. The government issuing edits on what cars and trucks we can buy, what home appliances are acceptable, how our children are to be brought up in the home, what is taught in institutions of so-called education, who we should vote for and what religious beliefs meet government standards are not specifically referenced in any of the history compilations that I have ever come across so far during my 70-year journey thru what passes for life these days.
This country was founded by free men who refused to bear their heads before a king and it has become a country where we are expected to willingly prostrate ourselves at the feet of faceless bureaucratic clerks. Frankly I find this state of affaire to be not only demeaning but rather embarrassing as well especially in light of what the generations before us had to endure to build this country. I am comforted by the fact that we have no second or third generation of offsprings that will be confronted with what...... from our admittedly biased perspective....appears to be the prospect of a dystopian society that has chosen to follow in the same misguided footsteps of the ancient Romans. At least in the case of the Romans they left roads and civil engineering structures that are still in use today.
The ability of a society to provide protection to one's family and themselves thru the rule of law has always been a hallmark of a successful societal undertaking. This current attempt to legislate away our abilities in this regard is essentially a clarion call for us to gather together and fight tooth and nail against being left defenseless against the predations of the criminal element that is always present in all societies. Make no mistake, our very lives and those of our loved ones are really and truly at risk should this sort of 4420 legislation become enforceable law.
Join GOAL, continue to contact your state senators and representatives, talk to your friends and neighbors and politely explain to them that even if they freely have chosen to not bear arms their wellbeing will be just as much at risk as will be ours. If we do not fight and succeed in stemming the tide of legislative disarmament, then there is the very real possibility that some day in the future what's left of the citizenry will be faced with the prospect of gathering around a campfire and asking.....this country began with such high hopes.....what in God's name happened to it.....
View attachment 778856 View attachment 778857
On another paragraph they ask for dictatorship.
Of course, one of those had to be a Harvard.
How far, what once was a prestigious institution, has fallen.
