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

SIGNES said:
Quote a post of me saying explicitly that yes, we should run a candidate against Day and his ilk, that they'd have to be a real threat to his re-election. That I'd donate money to such a campaign and, therefore I am a Day plant.

I am truly in awe of the...View attachment 779589
Click to expand...
There have been many trolls on this forum since the beginning .
I hate to be the one to tell you you're not even in the top 10.
You are a legend in your own mind only.
 
SIGNES said:
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.
Click to expand...
You still don't get it.
Compromise doesn't work with people who's objective is the elimination of you and rights.
We cannot win back our rights legislatively - the political map in this state simply doesn't support it and even with good candidates it would take generations to advance.
That leaves the courts where normally very small bites of the elephant are required. Then along comes 4420 that is so egregious in text and intent that fast track to SCOTUS is all but guaranteed.
However if gun advocacy groups 'work' with the legislature to 'fix' and compromise then the fight gets orders of magnitude more difficult in at least fighting the intent.
And in that compromise there won't be any gains only a short, temporary lessening of the losses.
Any attitude less than shall not be infringed is giving in.
Remember there are only three states that require a license to own firearms and 8 other require permits to purchase - Mass is in a very small minority of non conforming states.
 
Last edited:
Harry Christopher said:
You are certainly correct in that the Brookline, Cambridge, and other wealthy Suburban town Beautiful People have not given up on their belief that if only the rest of the inhabitants of the People's Democratic Socialist Republic would unquestioningly accept and clasp to their breasts the command guidance generously being put forward on Beacon Hill then this would be ///
Click to expand...
FFY. Most of these type of proposals are not coming from Boston,
 
freddieMA said:
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.
Click to expand...
I've read the entire thing
Towards the end it starts getting very rushed but it was a careful study of how to incorporate Giffords wish list into Mass law achieving the appearance of the ability to own firearms without actually allowing firearms to be popular or common. The effect would be near zero guns in two generations.
 
SIGNES said:
Ok, one more try because you've been one of the more informative folks in the discussion.

Hypothetically, there is a bill banning all rifle calibers but 6.5 Creedmore. It's got the votes to pass.

You oppose this bill and propose one that bans 32 Long Rifle, .44 Webley, .75 Chinese Jingal and a few dozen others of similar utility. That bill passes because you gave them a list hundreds of items long and you keep .308, .233/5.56, 30 etc and all the other ones almost everyone here uses regularly...

Did negotiating win or lose?
Click to expand...
You allow the most egregious bill to pass while publicly fighting it and announcing that it directly contradicts Supreme Court ruling.

Your choice isn't 'win or lose' it's 'cuck and lose'
 
SIGNES said:
We all (in MA) live in a world where Bruen didn't happen (except for the now single class of LTC) nothing, not a damned thing has gotten better in MA and it's very visibly headed for worse. In terms of processing times, I think but can't prove because I only have anecdote,that in 'non green towns' processing has been slowed from pre-Bruen pace as a form of malicious compliance by the anti Chiefs.
Click to expand...
Have you read Bruen?
You realize that what you stated was Bruen's holding, right?
All of the other stuff we attribute is only dicta and therefore must be argued in the courts where it will, eventually, become a holding (case law)
 
pastera said:
You allow the most egregious bill to pass while publicly fighting it and announcing that it directly contradicts Supreme Court ruling.

Your choice isn't 'win or lose' it's 'cuck and lose'
Click to expand...

So MA has had some of the worst gun laws in the country on the books for decades. I think we can agree on that.

How many lawsuits about MA gun laws have been filed that led to a ruling overturning them?

You'd think a state with some of the most problematic laws would have a bigger share of successful suits and yet...
 
VetteGirlMA said:
I called both of my reps and emailed them. If this comes up again I am 100% down and you can quote me on that to go and testify in public in Boston. If I don't then you have the right to call me a coward.

I've found the greatest way to defend my arguments is from the 4 boxes diner youtube channel. His goal he's stated in the channel is to make people the smartest in the room. He brings up the interesting points and quotes and tidbits that are needed and that's my goal. On twitter I spend time doing the research on how the left is defending gun laws in court. I've had liberals tell me "you're full of sh*t, you're making things up" and then I hit them with the evidence, the actual court room transcripts, the audio of the case being heard in court. They shut up instantly. It's worked every single time. I am what you call an accidental activist. I didn't want to be. I wanted to be left alone, but the left poked the bear for free campaign cash, so now I'm taking the battle to them. I'm making sure that entire world witnesses the democrats saying out loud "Your honor we're racists and we want you to uphold this law on the grounds of racism". The press won't do the job. The conservatives are too busy navel gazing over whatever bullsh*t Dylan Mulvaney is doing or some other stupid irrelevant sh*t. The right in this country, right here right now, does not deserve the mantle of leadership because frankly speaking they suck.

I'm even getting to the point where I have begun unfollowing some conservative voices out there because they are grifters plain and simple. They harvest whatever money then can from dummies who want to give them their daily dose of confirmation bias.

The country is ripe for the taking but the right is too stupid to do anything. It's like they get to the 99 yard line, drop the ball and run the other way. It's pathetic.
Click to expand...
Concur
He has crappy click bait titles but his content builds on itself in a very understandable manner.
If you want to understand the fight deeper than "shall not be infringed" and "from my cold, dead hands", he is an awesome resource.

Another good resource is Andrew Branca is reading through Heller, McDonald and Bruen. For those that find reading them to be infuriating, the audio book format may help a lot.
 
SIGNES said:
So MA has had some of the worst gun laws in the country on the books for decades. I think we can agree on that.

How many lawsuits about MA gun laws have been filed that led to a ruling overturning them?

You'd think a state with some of the most problematic laws would have a bigger share of successful suits and yet...
Click to expand...
Caetano
Until Bruen, the circuit case law was that there was no constitutional right to carry outside the home.
That fact along with the ease with which one could obtain an LTC in the overwhelming majority of cities made it very hard to get a case going. And if you did the state simply had the city cave, issue an LTC and therefore moot the case.
The real question is what case law in place caused Massachusetts to limit its infringement - with the publishing of Bruen they simply tossed out every restriction they always wanted in one fell swoop as a Hail Mary attempt to get people to suck up for a compromise.
And that's exactly what you are falling for.
 
pastera said:
Caetano
Until Bruen, the circuit case law was that there was no constitutional right to carry outside the home.
That fact along with the ease with which one could obtain an LTC in the overwhelming majority of cities made it very hard to get a case going. And if you did the state simply had the city cave, issue an LTC and therefore moot the case.
The real question is what case law in place caused Massachusetts to limit its infringement - with the publishing of Bruen they simply tossed out every restriction they always wanted in one fell swoop as a Hail Mary attempt to get people to suck up for a compromise.
And that's exactly what you are falling for.
Click to expand...
Bruen didn't toss out 'every restriction they wanted'. The current law under a Class A LTC (now all LTC's thanks to Bruen) is still loaded with legal traps. Bruen removed the mechanisms for denying without objective cause. It alluded to other fixes (common use test) but it didn't fix them.

Caetano was about stun guns. (it also codified some of the obvious right to defend yourself) but it didn't change gun laws.

Your point about how they buckled under pressure rather than go to trial when 'may issue' got challenged is instructive. They were artfully avoiding having rights established by case law from MA. It's arguable that this same 'avoid the courts, get away with enforcement by intimidation' is why 4420 died. It painted multiple legal targets on the legislative back. Reminding them of this was a large part of GOALs and other's strategy in fighting it.

Now, do you think that any GOAL negotiated compromise is going to help them continue the game of tangled legal traps to rule by intimidation and press release or do you think it'll remove some of those traps, give the people teeth if a case is filed?

The more people we win over by taking them shooting, encouraging to get their permits, discover the self evident truth that self defense is a human right, and not acting like lunatics that make them more afraid, the more, in the long term, the arc bends to freedom.

Join more clubs, shoot, make more friends. Bring more guests, don't confuse the issue with immediately alienating 'hot buttons'. If they believe <insert name of group you're bigoted against> folks should all get a pony, don't fight 'em. Get them to enjoy being in the 10 ring enough to vote to keep their rights.

Absolutism is pushing a short term win at the expense of generational freedom.
 
SIGNES said:
So MA has had some of the worst gun laws in the country on the books for decades. I think we can agree on that.

How many lawsuits about MA gun laws have been filed that led to a ruling overturning them?
Click to expand...
Since Bruen? Very few.

This is what you fail to comprehend: the post-Bruen climate is simply nothing like the pre-Bruen climate. You are not alone in that here on NES, but assuming that present or future suits will be as useless as past suits is folly.

The standard of legal scrutiny on gun cases has changed fundamentally. If you don’t understand what that means, fine, but educate yourself before you preach “remedies” based on your inaccurate conclusions.
 
pastera said:
You still don't get it.
Compromise doesn't work with people who's objective is the elimination of you and rights.
We cannot win back our rights legislatively - the political map in this state simply doesn't support it and even with good candidates it would take generations to advance.
That leaves the courts where normally very small bites of the elephant are required. Then along comes 4420 that is so egregious in text and intent that fast track to SCOTUS is all but guaranteed.
However if gun advocacy groups 'work' with the legislature to 'fix' and compromise then the fight gets orders of magnitude more difficult in at least fighting the intent.
And in that compromise there won't be any gains only a short, temporary lessening of the losses.
Any attitude less than shall not be infringed is giving in.
Remember there are only three states that require a license to own firearms and 8 other require permits to purchase - Mass is in a very small minority of non conforming states.
Click to expand...
The left's idea of compromise is to take only half of half. So you lose 25% each time. 100, 75, 64, 42, 32, 24, 18, 14, 10. So in only 8 terms, you stand to lose 90% of your guns, rights, money, etc. Compromise is completely wrong-think when dealing with leftists. Mass is already fundamentally at the 42 or 64 mark depending on how you want to look at things. This bill wants to skip 32 and 24 and go straight to 18. After this bill passes, here's what's next:
1690731766620.png
 
Harry Christopher said:
to their breasts the command guidance generously being put forward on Beacon Hill then this would be a better and more perfect world. According to the prevailing opinion in Boston the great unwashed in the hinterlands are tolerated...barely...as sadly just ignorant beasts of burden useful for the harvesting of votes and frankly little else.
Click to expand...
And subsidizing MWRA water/sewer rates that are considerably lower for Boston than points west.
 
hunt4riches said:
The left's idea of compromise is to take only half of half. So you lose 25% each time. 100, 75, 64, 42, 32, 24, 18, 14, 10. So in only 8 terms, you stand to lose 90% of your guns, rights, money, etc. Compromise is completely wrong-think when dealing with leftists. Mass is already fundamentally at the 42 or 64 mark depending on how you want to look at things. This bill wants to skip 32 and 24 and go straight to 18.
Click to expand...
That is not compromise.

If given voluntarily it is appeasement.

If taken involuntarily it is defeat.

Time for our side to start adding addendums to every gun bill - 6 year non-resident licensing; fix the gunshow/competition exemption; negate Comm v. Cornelius; Prohibit dropped charges, not guilty and CWOF from being used against an LTC applicant, etc. Make the other side fight against us, not just the other way around.
 
Last edited:
hunt4riches said:
The left's idea of compromise is to take only half of half. So you lose 25% each time. 100, 75, 64, 42, 32, 24, 18, 14, 10. So in only 8 terms, you stand to lose 90% of your guns, rights, money, etc. Compromise is completely wrong-think when dealing with leftists. Mass is already fundamentally at the 42 or 64 mark depending on how you want to look at things. This bill wants to skip 32 and 24 and go straight to 18. After this bill passes, here's what's next:
View attachment 779678
Click to expand...
Tougher gun laws, safer communities? The communities with the toughest laws are crime ridden $hit holes.
 
Picton said:
Since Bruen? Very few.

This is what you fail to comprehend: the post-Bruen climate is simply nothing like the pre-Bruen climate. You are not alone in that here on NES, but assuming that present or future suits will be as useless as past suits is folly.

The standard of legal scrutiny on gun cases has changed fundamentally. If you don’t understand what that means, fine, but educate yourself before you preach “remedies” based on your inaccurate conclusions.
Click to expand...

Very few? I'll name some off the top of my head.
- Roster (and all the absolute lunacy in it like items appearing on it as permitted while barred from sale in a completely different section of MA 'consumer protection' law.
- Safe storage and transport laws.
- The MA AWB.
Rob Boudrie said:
Time for our side to start adding addendums to every gun bill - 6 year non-resident licensing; fix the gunshow/competition exemption; negate Comm v. Cornelius; Prohibit dropped charges, not guilty and CWOF from being used against an LTC applicant, etc. Make the other side fight against us, not just the other way around.
Click to expand...
Also-@#$%^in-lutely! This is exactly the kind of thing you can solve in a negotiation process. (The loss of rights when not convicted thing seems a comparatively easy win because if publicized well makes them look really, really bad..)

What keeps getting ignored here is:
- What they really want is a PR win. They truly don't understand any of what they're regulating.
- Whatever bill gets negotiated is still up for legal challenge. It's not like you get a blunted bill that chills them out for a little while instead of 4420 and then you can't still file suits, or benefit from suits filed elsewhere.
 
In what universe is it a net loss if the roster and CMR get punted as the B.S. they are and F.R.T.s,Switches, Bumpstocks, and Super Safeties get outright banned in MA?

In what universe does an MA ban on those devices 'conceded' in that deal stand if the ATF continues to be slapped down for 'making up law' and SCOTUS says those things must be legal under 2A?
 
One interesting effect of Bruen - there is no mechanism for state legislatures to create an exemption for important people (Famous, rich, well connected, influential) to be exempt from provisions like private property bans that make defensive carry totally impractical. No more armed diamond merchants, business owners making deposits at the night drop or armed details for people who are more important than us ordinaries.
 
SIGNES said:
In what universe is it a net loss if the roster and CMR get punted as the B.S. they are and F.R.T.s,Switches, Bumpstocks, and Super Safeties get outright banned in MA?

In what universe does an MA ban on those devices 'conceded' in that deal stand if the ATF continues to be slapped down for 'making up law' and SCOTUS says those things must be legal under 2A?
Click to expand...
Do you have or support any proposals that do not include concessions?
 
SIGNES said:
Please, Feel free to ignore every post I make. Click my avatar and you'll see an "Ignore" button. Two clicks, easy peasy, and I won't take offense or notice for that matter. I promise.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately it doesn't stop me from seeing the people who quotes you..... it just makes it real interesting to try and figure out what they are responding to.

but I digress.... I was actually reading your posts until you claimed "GOAL" as the one thing you've done to make your strategy work. You do know the conventional wisdom definition of insanity don't you???
 
pastera said:
Concur
He has crappy click bait titles but his content builds on itself in a very understandable manner.
If you want to understand the fight deeper than "shall not be infringed" and "from my cold, dead hands", he is an awesome resource.

Another good resource is Andrew Branca is reading through Heller, McDonald and Bruen. For those that find reading them to be infuriating, the audio book format may help a lot.
Click to expand...
Attorney Andrew Branca is indeed an excellent source of legal information oriented towards the subject of lethal force employed in a perceived self-defense situation. His book .....

1690734783233.png is worth the cost of purchase and the time to read and study as if your freedom may depend upon such knowledge as well it might at some unexpected time in the future.

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said, "This is a court of law, not of justice". In our eyes we may think that a self-defense shooting is pretty straight forward and discover to our undying regret that upon our arrival in court that is very much not how the legal apparatus views the situation and the shooter now faces potential incarceration and fiduciary ruin.

In 2005 I attended a GOAL class entitled The Art of Concealed Carry in MA. The legal discussion of the class was led by the late attorney Darius Arbabi who was at that time a practicing criminal defense attorney with wide ranging experience in the defense of self-defense shootings as they actually played out here in the Republic. He made a point of bringing to the classes' attention that if one had to defend themselves in a self-defense shooting situation the entry level legal cost would start at $50,000 if it really was a case of self-defense and if there were any doubts whatsoever that the shooter may have been at fault the entry level legal defense cost would start at $200,000 and increase from there. His point was that it really behooved one to have a clear understanding of just how the law would be interpreted by the courts in this day and age especially here in a very unfriendly Republic.

There is a mantra that I remind myself of whenever I leave the property carrying a concealed handgun:

A prudent and reasonable individual knowing what you knew at the time of the shooting has to believe that a threat of imminent and unavoidable death or grievous bodily injury existed and the person doing the threatening had the ability, opportunity and the jeopardy to bring that threat to fruition in order for the subsequent employment of lethal force to be considered in the legal realm as a justifiable self-defense shooting.

Attorney Branca's book delves into the specificity of what all these individual components of the legal definition of justifiable armed self-defense are and how the court system actually views them. I would strongly recommend the purchase and study of his book prior to any serious commitment to going about one's daily business while carrying concealed. I would also recommend attending the GOAL Concealed Carry class if you are able to do so.

Concealed carry believers are at a definite disadvantage here in the Republic. Self-education can go a long way to trying to even up the odds in our favor.
 
SIGNES said:
Yes. And? How do you think it went for the folks who got on the internet and said "I will not comply."?
Click to expand...
Beats me, mostly because IDGAF. I'm assuming nothing happened to them as the media would have spared no chance to pillory them if anything had. If you know the facts to be otherwise, state your sources to support your proposition.
 
SIGNES said:
View attachment 779551
Click to expand...
You don't have a point other then spraying controlled op garbage. Either that or you're really, really stupid and haven't done your research. "Middle Ground gun control" was never a valid thing in this country. It's exceptionally rare that some form of negotiation results in a net positive outcome. The only time I've ever seen it be useful is when the antis were pushed on the ropes on some other issue... it /never/ happens when RKBA supporters are the ones under attack.
 

Similar threads

Legislative push starts to repeal Massachusetts gun law
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Chevy 2 65
Chevy 2 65
New and “improved” gun laws. Hahaha
2 3 4
Replies
115
Views
2K
Rick O'Shea
Rick O'Shea
AG Bondi Proposes Stronger Gun Confiscation Laws
Replies
21
Views
734
1sern
1
Shush act
2
Replies
42
Views
860
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Misdemeanor Assault and Battery Conviction Massachusetts 1994
Replies
22
Views
530
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Back
Top Bottom