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

42! said:
When he reports a Big Win I'll listen, the rest are just click bait
It's a little said that his site has fewer subscribers than clickbait G&G
Click to expand...
He’s doing just fine, I have actaully spoken to him a few times. Super humble guy truly salt of the earth.

He’s doing just fine though he is doing what he loves every single day.
 
pastera said:
The guy had other pending charges so no need to hit him with the carry charge in order to extract maximal punishment and funds.
Even Mass recognizes that they can only push so far and they already have a foot over the line.
I doubt the dismissal will be appealed since at the district Court level it isn't binding so no real loss to the state
Click to expand...
What other charges?
 
inerlogic said:
What other charges?
Click to expand...
The opinion states other charges but I wasn't able to find an exact list.
Post with the opinion
www.northeastshooters.com

Supreme Court - NYSRPA v. Bruen - Megathread

If this case was about gunz CA9 might care. The ruling is pretty well written, lays out how Bruen/2A applies and how HI could not/will not find any historically analogous laws banning what is basically a pocket knife. HI tried to baffle the court with BS and the three judge panel basically...
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com

Footnote 1 on the first page states
Possession of a firearm
Possession of ammunition
Operating under the influence

So the two possession charges will likely be dropped for the same reasons as the carry charge.
The OUI is going to suck but if it's his first ride then he should be able to get through it with 2a rights intact.
Surprised there wasn't an intoxicated carry charge also - or there may be no breathalyzer evidence so they don't have an easy basis to charge.
 
Last edited:
Quantavious G said:
my brain is basically a bifurcated chick analysis machine. The reptilian part assesses the female form in much the same way the terminator analyzed its targets. It all comes down to shapes, dimensions, ratios, and number estimates. The marginally advanced part of my brain processes the intangibles - politics, sense of humor, etc.

Both sets of criteria carry a certain weight. A girl could be a 10+ and I might still push her off a cliff. However, if she was totally good to go with the intangibles, but looked like Biden's sock puppet Levin, that would be a deal breaker as well.

It's all a moot point, though, cause no chicks are interested in me anyhow.
Click to expand...
I learned a long time ago to keep that atavistic part of my brain out of the decision making process. It didn't end well for anyone when it was part of the process.
 
Bigfudge16 said:
In my experience he stands against everything I stand for...
Click to expand...

After 5 attempts to explain my opposition to 4420 to my representative this is his response:

Good afternoon,

Thank you for contacting my office regarding HD.4420, “An act modernizing firearms laws” with your thoughts on the proposed legislation. This bill remains early in the legislative process and I expect a public hearing to occur at some point before any language is brought to the floor of the House for a vote. It is my hope that any bill brought up for a vote focuses on updating the state's red flag laws and addresses the rise in ghost guns being used in the commission of crimes.

Once again, thank you for reaching out regarding HD.4420. My staff and I will continue to monitor this legislation as it moves through the legislative process.

Please feel free to contact me with additional thoughts or questions on this bill or any other matter.


Somehow I have to wonder if he took English in high school to fulfill his foreign language requirement because he did not address any of the facts that I sent him to support my opposition to the underlining intent of 4420 which is solely to disarm legal gun owners and increase their chances of becoming victims of violent crimes.

CRIME IS CAUSED BY CRIMINALS....NOT LEGAL GUN OWNERS.........IT REALLY IS NOT THAT HARD A CONCEPT TO UNDERSTAND.

I wonder if in future communications I would be able to more clearly express my point of view if I just sent him this:

1692882628665.png
 
Harry Christopher said:
After 5 attempts to explain my opposition to 4420 to my representative this is his response:

Good afternoon,

Thank you for contacting my office regarding HD.4420, “An act modernizing firearms laws” with your thoughts on the proposed legislation. This bill remains early in the legislative process and I expect a public hearing to occur at some point before any language is brought to the floor of the House for a vote. It is my hope that any bill brought up for a vote focuses on updating the state's red flag laws and addresses the rise in ghost guns being used in the commission of crimes.

Once again, thank you for reaching out regarding HD.4420. My staff and I will continue to monitor this legislation as it moves through the legislative process.

Please feel free to contact me with additional thoughts or questions on this bill or any other matter.


Somehow I have to wonder if he took English in high school to fulfill his foreign language requirement because he did not address any of the facts that I sent him to support my opposition to the underlining intent of 4420 which is solely to disarm legal gun owners and increase their chances of becoming victims of violent crimes.

CRIME IS CAUSED BY CRIMINALS....NOT LEGAL GUN OWNERS.........IT REALLY IS NOT THAT HARD A CONCEPT TO UNDERSTAND.
Click to expand...
I couldn't comment on this without seeing you full submission as well, was there really room for debate?
 
42! said:
I couldn't comment on this without seeing you full submission as well, was there really room for debate?
Click to expand...


It would appear that the representative is either unable or unwilling to even consider my point of view as to the foundational causation of how crime occurs in the first place. The response from my senator is really no different in tone. As far as your question goes, in my mind there is no room whatsoever in the discussion of crime prevention and how best to address it.........focus on the criminals committing the crime in the first place.....end of discussion.

I just received an email this afternoon from Attorney Andrew Branca....author of The Law of Self-Defense book which I think so highly of........about a House bill that I could support 100%......unfortunately it is in the Ohio House and not the Boston House. Here is part of what he said:

"The Ohio legislature is considering House Bill 233 which would re-write the state's self-defense law to provide for self-defense immunity--the right to have a low-cost pre-trial hearing determine a claim of self-defense, and avoid the terrible cost, time, and risks of a full-blown trial.

A quick read of the proposal suggests that this would be the MOST POWERFUL self-defense immunity privilege anywhere in America.

On top of Ohio in 2019 finally placing the burden on the state to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt (as every other state has done for many years), and on 2021 having become a stand-your-ground state, the adoption of this powerful self-defense immunity law may well make result in Ohio shifting from having the nation's WORST self-defense laws (pre-2019) to having the MOST FAVORABLE self-defense law anywhere in America."

If the Boston House ever came up with a proposal like the one above, I would actively campaign for its passage, but I know that is never going to happen here in the Republic.
 
Harry Christopher said:
It would appear that the representative is either unable or unwilling to even consider my point of view as to the foundational causation of how crime occurs in the first place. The response from my senator is really no different in tone. As far as your question goes, in my mind there is no room whatsoever in the discussion of crime prevention and how best to address it.........focus on the criminals committing the crime in the first place.....end of discussion.

I just received an email this afternoon from Attorney Andrew Branca....author of The Law of Self-Defense book which I think so highly of........about a House bill that I could support 100%......unfortunately it is in the Ohio House and not the Boston House. Here is part of what he said:

"The Ohio legislature is considering House Bill 233 which would re-write the state's self-defense law to provide for self-defense immunity--the right to have a low-cost pre-trial hearing determine a claim of self-defense, and avoid the terrible cost, time, and risks of a full-blown trial.

A quick read of the proposal suggests that this would be the MOST POWERFUL self-defense immunity privilege anywhere in America.

On top of Ohio in 2019 finally placing the burden on the state to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt (as every other state has done for many years), and on 2021 having become a stand-your-ground state, the adoption of this powerful self-defense immunity law may well make result in Ohio shifting from having the nation's WORST self-defense laws (pre-2019) to having the MOST FAVORABLE self-defense law anywhere in America."

If the Boston House ever came up with a proposal like the one above, I would actively campaign for its passage, but I know that is never going to happen here in the Republic.
Click to expand...
It was more along the lines of how it was written. If it was a collection of declarative statements reflecting your opinions and what facts you feel support them, there is little reason to expect a counter argument. On the other hand, if it compares specific elements of the bill to various precedents and facts, pointing out the conflicts in the bill and asking what his position on those points is, then there is a clear opening for discussion.

For example, if I say "I hate elephants", the other guy can shrug and say OK, acknowledging that I said something and nothing more. On the other hand if I say "I hate elephants because studies show they fart a lot and this contributes to geen house gasses. What is your position of farting elephants? Do you agree or gisagree and why? And if you disagree, how do you justify that position given the facts?" A simple OK just doesn't work, they either have to ignore a direct question or answer with a meaningful response.

Politically, ignoring a constituent who has taken the time to write looks bad, and a non-response response to specific questions looks even worse, an so he is stuck and has to reply.

This ability to avoid a response is one of the reasons I meet in person, there is just no way not to respond.
 
Harry Christopher said:
It would appear that the representative is either unable or unwilling to even consider my point of view as to the foundational causation of how crime occurs in the first place. The response from my senator is really no different in tone. As far as your question goes, in my mind there is no room whatsoever in the discussion of crime prevention and how best to address it.........focus on the criminals committing the crime in the first place.....end of discussion.

I just received an email this afternoon from Attorney Andrew Branca....author of The Law of Self-Defense book which I think so highly of........about a House bill that I could support 100%......unfortunately it is in the Ohio House and not the Boston House. Here is part of what he said:

"The Ohio legislature is considering House Bill 233 which would re-write the state's self-defense law to provide for self-defense immunity--the right to have a low-cost pre-trial hearing determine a claim of self-defense, and avoid the terrible cost, time, and risks of a full-blown trial.

A quick read of the proposal suggests that this would be the MOST POWERFUL self-defense immunity privilege anywhere in America.

On top of Ohio in 2019 finally placing the burden on the state to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt (as every other state has done for many years), and on 2021 having become a stand-your-ground state, the adoption of this powerful self-defense immunity law may well make result in Ohio shifting from having the nation's WORST self-defense laws (pre-2019) to having the MOST FAVORABLE self-defense law anywhere in America."

If the Boston House ever came up with a proposal like the one above, I would actively campaign for its passage, but I know that is never going to happen here in the Republic.
Click to expand...
I like this - a trial to determine if an individual "acted in self defense" vs. is not gilty of "a litany of charges". Easy checkboxes:
1) Was the individual allowed to be where [he/she/it] was?
2) Was the individual allowed to possess a firearm.
3) Was there a credible threat against the life or well-being of said individual.
a. Assailant was armed with a blunt object, knife, firearm or other dangerous/deadly weapon?
b. Did assailant
(...etc -- you get the point).

-- oh yeah, the DA is supposed to do all this before said "litany of charges", but no, we live in the United States of Soros where all DA's hate gun owners.
 
42! said:
It was more along the lines of how it was written. If it was a collection of declarative statements reflecting your opinions and what facts you feel support them, there is little reason to expect a counter argument. On the other hand, if it compares specific elements of the bill to various precedents and facts, pointing out the conflicts in the bill and asking what his position on those points is, then there is a clear opening for discussion.

For example, if I say "I hate elephants", the other guy can shrug and say OK, acknowledging that I said something and nothing more. On the other hand if I say "I hate elephants because studies show they fart a lot and this contributes to geen house gasses. What is your position of farting elephants? Do you agree or gisagree and why? And if you disagree, how do you justify that position given the facts?" A simple OK just doesn't work, they either have to ignore a direct question or answer with a meaningful response.

Politically, ignoring a constituent who has taken the time to write looks bad, and a non-response response to specific questions looks even worse, an so he is stuck and has to reply.

This ability to avoid a response is one of the reasons I meet in person, there is just no way not to respond.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, if it compares specific elements of the bill to various precedents and facts, pointing out the conflicts in the bill and asking what his position on those points is, then there is a clear opening for discussion.
Click to expand...

Besides sending him the articles written by police chiefs and mayors pointing out their opposition to 4420 as written, I also sent the GOAL markup which does rebut parts of the bill in great detail. His only response was to reiterate his interest in ghost guns and red flag laws, and he did not address at all any of the GOAL line-item specificity information.

I suspect that the vast majority of Republic politicians have already made up their minds to adhere to the party platform on this issue regardless of what the 2-A proponents have to say or the facts they marshal in support of their position. It is just the unfortunate reality of the political climate where we happen to reside these days.
 

Similar threads

Legislative push starts to repeal Massachusetts gun law
2
Replies
54
Views
2K
Chevy 2 65
Chevy 2 65
New and “improved” gun laws. Hahaha
3 4 5
Replies
127
Views
2K
Randy Lahey
Randy Lahey
AG Bondi Proposes Stronger Gun Confiscation Laws
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
Individualist
Individualist
Shush act
2
Replies
42
Views
861
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
Misdemeanor Assault and Battery Conviction Massachusetts 1994
Replies
22
Views
531
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Back
Top Bottom