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

I honestly don’t think they dropped charges against Jones for being a celebrity… at least not on the way people are insinuating.

I think they dropped charges because he had the presence and means to fight them all the way through the courts. MA doesn’t want him dismantling laws through the courts. Not that he would necessarily be doing it for the 2A… but the result would be the same.
 
PappyM3 said:
I think they dropped charges because he had the presence and means to fight them all the way through the courts. MA doesn’t want him dismantling laws through the courts. Not that he would necessarily be doing it for the 2A… but the result would be the same.
Click to expand...
Question: Was it just Massachusetts state law that he broke or was it Federal law? Or both? I would think that would make a difference. 🤔
 
Harry Christopher said:
Sanchez has eight firearms registered to her name, five of which could not be found and never reported stolen to police. The other three firearms were found improperly stored, two located within her residence and another improperly stored in an hidden spot in the basement of the apartment building.

Owners of firearms should take note that the laws that require you to properly store and secure guns at all times will be enforced,” said District Attorney Anthony Gulluni.

The law regarding so-called safe storage was last addressed....if my memory is correct.....in 2014 with the Chapter 284 legislation update which covered safe firearm storage as explained by GOAL:

Chapter 284​

THE ACTS OF 2014 – CHAPTER 284​

On August 13, 2014 Governor Patrick signed H.4376 into law. Now known as Chapter 284, the legislation represents the most sweeping changes to Massachusetts laws related to firearms in over a decade.

View attachment 791157

There is also in the 284 update the following pursuant to lost or stolen firearms:


View attachment 791165

It certainly seems to me that the question of "safe storage" and reporting "lost/stolen firearms" was pretty well documented back in 2014 and in this particular case those are the (2) crimes she is reported as being charged with at the moment. I suspect that if any of the (5) other firearms that were not found at this time end up being recovered as part of future crimes she may then very likely be charged in relation to those crimes.

So.......my question is........ since both the storage and reporting issues were addressed 9 years ago in the legislative update.......... and their existence STILL did not stop this woman from breaking the law......how can any person who is capable of fogging up a mirror placed beneath their nose.........actually believe that MORE laws will make all the citizens in the Republic demonstratively safer......... when the exact same laws they argue as being necessary in any new legislation...........ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS AND NOT DOING ANYTHING TO REDUCE THE CRIME RATE AT ALL??

GEE.......DO YOU THINK THAT THE CRIME PROBLEM HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CRIMINAL IN THE PAST......IN THE PRESENT.......AND WILL BE IN THE FUTURE......

UNTIL THEY ARE THE FOCUS OF THE POLITICIANS THEN NOBODY WILL TRULY BE SAFE IN THE REPUBLIC. PERIOD.
View attachment 791171
Click to expand...
SCOTUS : 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
 
Horatio_Alger_Jr said:
Think I will write my reps tomorrow about this.

I would like to know why would they vote to pass new laws if the charges will ultimately be dropped anyway.

Or is it the charges only get dropped for the beautiful people.
Click to expand...
In all seriousness, does anyone really believe that this stinking turd has any chance of being signed into law? As written, it will, among other things, put armored car companies in this state out of business and get off-duty cops arrested. How the hell does one "serialize" a magazine or a barrel. The frame is the firearm. It looks like air guns, exempted from licensing since 1998, will once again be considered "firearms", like NJ law. I read it from cover to cover. Fat chance it ever ends up on Maura's desk!
 
SavageShooter said:
In all seriousness, does anyone really believe that this stinking turd has any chance of being signed into law? As written, it will, among other things, put armored car companies in this state out of business and get off-duty cops arrested. How the hell does one "serialize" a magazine or a barrel. The frame is the firearm. It looks like air guns, exempted from licensing since 1998, will once again be considered "firearms", like NJ law. I read it from cover to cover. Fat chance it ever ends up on Maura's desk!
Click to expand...
:oops: Have you met our legislators? ☹️
 
PappyM3 said:
The feds didn’t charge him with anything as far as I’m tracking. He may have gotten a fine from the TSA, but that was probably it.
Click to expand...
Interesting. You would think trying to take a couple undeclared loaded guns with extended mags onto a plane in your carry-on would be a Federal crime... but maybe not? :confused:

But back to your point (about MA), I think you give the DA too much credit for thinking in terms of avoiding a court battle on Constitutional issues all the way up to SCOTUS. There is a more simple explanation for his inability to "prove the case" against this guy. Think: power, money, political correctness and those season tickets. [laugh]
 
SavageShooter said:
In all seriousness, does anyone really believe that this stinking turd has any chance of being signed into law? As written, it will, among other things, put armored car companies in this state out of business and get off-duty cops arrested. How the hell does one "serialize" a magazine or a barrel. The frame is the firearm. It looks like air guns, exempted from licensing since 1998, will once again be considered "firearms", like NJ law. I read it from cover to cover. Fat chance it ever ends up on Maura's desk!
Click to expand...

Personal, I believe it will. They will make LEO exempt (as always) and it will pass with no issue.

They need to keep up with RI, CT and NY.
 
Horatio_Alger_Jr said:
Personal, I believe it will. They will make LEO exempt (as always) and it will pass with no issue.

They need to keep up with RI, CT and NY.
Click to expand...
This....they will change the number on the bill to make the signs everyone is posting basically invalid......

They will exempt LEO and ram it thru in the middle of the night ASAP.
 
SavageShooter said:
In all seriousness, does anyone really believe that this stinking turd has any chance of being signed into law?
Click to expand...
Yes it absolutely does. House Speaker Mariano flat out said that HD.4420 would’ve been passed out of both houses and signed into law by now were it not for the huge public outcry from constituents. If we let up on them even a little bit, the bill will be rammed down our throats. They do not care what ramifications this bill will have, they just want to pass it so they can advance their careers.
 
Joeldiaz said:
Yes it absolutely does. House Speaker Mariano flat out said that HD.4420 would’ve been passed out of both houses and signed into law by now were it not for the huge public outcry from constituents. If we let up on them even a little bit, the bill will be rammed down our throats. They do not care what ramifications this bill will have, they just want to pass it so they can advance their careers.
Click to expand...
What was main thing that prevented them from passing it? Talking about fundamental human (gun) rights to an anti-gun zealot I always thought fell on deaf ears.
 
JoseyWales said:
What was main thing that prevented them from passing it?
Click to expand...

The reminder that it went against Bruen, and was thus destined for an immediate injunction followed by a super-fun court battle the state would lose. Mariano mentioned the unwillingness to run afoul of SCOTUS as the key reason why the bill needs to be modified.
 
Picton said:
The reminder that it went against Bruen, and was thus destined for an immediate injunction followed by a super-fun court battle the state would lose. Mariano mentioned the unwillingness to run afoul of SCOTUS as the key reason why the bill needs to be modified.
Click to expand...
You mean the illegitimate SCOTUS he mentioned?.
 
Picton said:
Mariano is not an idiot, nor an idealogue, nor a fighter. He wants to infringe, but he doesn't want a rockfight over it. He'll take the path of least resistance.
Click to expand...
Like when they passed the red flag law and we all thought "It won't apply to me so why complain!?". Now all they have to do is add a small wording to the law that says that the MA AG office can file red flag notices on groups of people. Next thing you know, confiscation can begin and all of you, who didn't think it wasn't your fight, will end up becoming "subjects" instead of "citizens".
 
Joeldiaz said:
HD.4420 literally has gun confiscation in it.
Click to expand...

You mean the bill that's so unpalatable they withdrew it?

Wonder why. Maybe because Mariano understands they can't confiscate guns, among other things.

Seriously, if he and his minions had any stomach for this fight, they'd have pulled a Hochul and gone ahead with their plans and damn the consequences. They decided not to. Maybe there's a reason for that.
 
Picton said:
You mean the bill that's so unpalatable they withdrew it?

Wonder why. Maybe because Mariano understands they can't confiscate guns, among other things.

Seriously, if he and his minions had any stomach for this fight, they'd have pulled a Hochul and gone ahead with their plans and damn the consequences. They decided not to. Maybe there's a reason for that.
Click to expand...
Until we see a new version of HD.4420 without gun confiscation, everyone’s concerns about confiscation are valid. Mariano didn’t withdraw the bill because he had a sudden epiphany and understood the bill was a bunch of BS. Like I said earlier, they didn’t care about the ramifications of the bill or whether most of it was even enforceable. Mariano absolutely would’ve pulled a Hochul and rammed it through. If the MA 2A community didn’t make their voices heard, we’d be f***ed.
 
Joeldiaz said:
Mariano didn’t withdraw the bill because he had a sudden epiphany and understood the bill was a bunch of BS.
Click to expand...

When did I say that? He pulled the bill because he’s afraid of federal injunctions. A confiscation provision simply makes that more likely

Joeldiaz said:
If the MA 2A community didn’t make their voices heard, we’d be f***ed.
Click to expand...
I’m agreeing about this. But what about it? Why do you think Mariano cares at all about the MA 2A community? What argument did we give him that woke him up?

I’m curious what you think our leverage was, if not the threat of an injunction over Bruen.
 
Joeldiaz said:
HD.4420 literally has gun confiscation in it.
Click to expand...
Yep, sure did! They expanded the list to local chiefs of police(who are appointed, not elected and employers(the state is the largest employer) to the list.

It seems that every time our side claims "they wouldn't dare!", they dare and they DO. HD 4420 is a perfect example!
 
JoseyWales said:
What was main thing that prevented them from passing it? Talking about fundamental human (gun) rights to an anti-gun zealot I always thought fell on deaf ears.
Click to expand...

They care about the gravy train coming to a stop.

If you want to get their attention you need to speak their language.

Tell them that NOT only will you vote for their opponent YOU WILL donate your time AND money to get their opponent elected.
 
Picton said:
When did I say that? He pulled the bill because he’s afraid of federal injunctions. A confiscation provision simply makes that more likely
Click to expand...
Why do you think he's afraid? NY passed an atrocious piece of anti-constitutional law immediately following Bruen. We went to court for PARTS of it, not the whole thing. In other words, they throw EVERYTHING at the board and force us to spend money to clean it all up. The problem is, with courts purposefully dragging these cases out for years, it will take decades to unwind the NY garbage law. Even if it is overturned and SCOTUS can only order states to review the laws to remove illegal parts, the process can again be dragged out for years.

Meanwhile, MA passes HD 4420 and is guaranteed at least a decade of gun confiscation and gun ownership made impossible. By the time these anti-American laws are removed, there will be no gun owners left in MA.
 
40 Creedmoor fan said:
Why do you think he's afraid? NY passed an atrocious piece of anti-constitutional law immediately following Bruen. We went to court for PARTS of it, not the whole thing. In other words, they throw EVERYTHING at the board and force us to spend money to clean it all up. The problem is, with courts purposefully dragging these cases out for years, it will take decades to unwind the NY garbage law. Even if it is overturned and SCOTUS can only order states to review the laws to remove illegal parts, the process can again be dragged out for years.

Meanwhile, MA passes HD 4420 and is guaranteed at least a decade of gun confiscation and gun ownership made impossible. By the time these anti-American laws are removed, there will be no gun owners left in MA.
Click to expand...
There will be plenty of gun owners, just not the “legal” kind. Whatever that means anymore.
 

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
116
Views
2K
Mark from ?
M
AG Bondi Proposes Stronger Gun Confiscation Laws
Replies
24
Views
803
HARRYM
HARRYM
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