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

[Picton]

Well, I'm certainly glad so many folks on here continue to focus on cop-bashing, even at a time like this. Keep it up, it helps the other side.

Here’s the thing, though: we’re not wrong.

MA gun laws have been unconstitutional for decades. The cops have kept their mouths shut until now. Why is that, do you think?

 

[freddieMA]

You should’ve heard him at the preliminary injunction hearing a few months back for the case of NAGR v. Campbell challenging MA’s AWB & mag bans. He was awful, clearly not properly applying Heller. He’s going to rule against us, as are all MA courts, both state and federal. SCOTUS is our only hope.

transcript anywhere?

i'll trust you from now on. i scanned most of the interesting synopsys and thought them rational.

 

[pastera]

Well, I'm certainly glad so many folks on here continue to focus on cop-bashing, even at a time like this. Keep it up, it helps the other side.

Let's face it, if everyone who owns firearms in Massachusetts keeps wasting time pointing fingers at ANYBODY beside the legislature, you get what you deserve. We might as well all start model railroading as a hobby, cuz that'll be all that's left when they are through with us. We may lose the first couple of battles and it may become a law in the Commonwealth, but start using your keyboards to educate, inform, and yes even attack. As long as you stop attacking the wrong folks.

We were all surprised by MCOPA and a few chiefs makipublic statements against HD4420.
But we are under no illusions that the upper levels of the police won't support this POS once the errors that treat police like commoners are fixed.

Sorry but the majority of public support coming from the police has been and will likely continue to be for the infringement of our rights.

Just stating the facts as I see them.

 

[Joeldiaz]

transcript anywhere?

i'll trust you from now on. i scanned most of the interesting synopsys and thought them rational.

Don’t know if there’s a transcript available, but here are the main points:

It appeared that Judge Saylor didn’t familiarize himself with the material. He asked many irrelevant questions that didn’t contribute to the discussion. He also showed a strong bias against the plaintiffs. His numerous questions indicated skepticism towards the common use test. He found it bizarre that the constitutionality of weapons would be determined solely by their quantity, deeming the common use test to be logically problematic. He devoted considerable time to discussing sawed-off shotguns and even suggested they might be more suitable for self-defense than the banned weapons.

Barry Arrington, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, performed poorly. He displayed disrespect towards Judge Saylor and had an indignant attitude, which is never advantageous in a courtroom setting. The plaintiffs' lawyer was also quite disappointing, with frequent awkward pauses and redundant sentences. Although there were a few good moments, overall it was frustrating to listen to.

The state's lawyer was slick and articulate. They reiterated the standard points: weapons should be practical for self-defense, assault weapons are not commonly used for self-defense (to Saylor’s credit, he did question this assertion), violating the Second Amendment doesn’t warrant an injunction, and so on.

However, I should note that the state’s lawyer’s closing argument was internally inconsistent. Her second point emphasized the "degree of burden" and the "how and why" of restrictions (essentially balancing interests). Yet, in the very next statement, she claimed that the state wasn't engaging in improper balancing of interests.

While Judge Saylor was tough on the plaintiffs, he also had some strong moments countering the state's arguments. He correctly highlighted the difficulty in distinguishing a combat weapon from any other firearm, asserting that all guns were designed for military purposes. He argued that while it's easy to categorize missiles as military tools, there's no clear line separating rifles and handguns. This was a positive point.

Another positive moment from Judge Saylor occurred during the discussion of the preliminary injunction. The state contended that the plaintiffs hadn't proven irreparable harm. However, Judge Saylor correctly pointed out that irreparable harm is essentially just assumed in cases involving fundamental rights, likening it to a ban on books. Although this is encouraging, I'm unsure if Judge Saylor is convinced of the merits of our case.

I didn't have high expectations for obtaining an injunction prior to the hearing, and now my hopes are even lower. Judge Saylor appears to lack a thorough understanding of the technical intricacies of the case. He seems inclined to establish a new and potentially “improved” standard, diverging from what has been established by the Supreme Court. NAGR v. Campbell is going nowhere.

 

[mpd61]

We were all surprised by MCOPA and a few chiefs makipublic statements against HD4420.
But we are under no illusions that the upper levels of the police won't support this POS once the errors that treat police like commoners are fixed.

Sorry but the majority of public support coming from the police has been and will likely continue to be for the infringement of our rights.

Just stating the facts as I see them.

1. When have you ever seen Commonwealth police officers "supporting the infringement of our rights"? On T.V., The steps of the Statehouse? Where?
2. Being immersed in L.E. for over three decades in this state, I can tell you the overwhelming majority of boots on the ground cops are very pro 2A and not just for themselves.
3. For MCOPA and in some individual Chiefs to step up and publicly raise the alarm to defend YOUR 2A rights is indeed unprecedented. Again, please stop perpetuating myths in regards to those sworn to defend them.

 

[mpd61]

Here’s the thing, though: we’re not wrong.

MA gun laws have been unconstitutional for decades. The cops have kept their mouths shut until now. Why is that, do you think?

Perhaps because like us, they too have had enough!?!? Besides they're not legislators either. But enjoy directing your sarcasm at somebody.

 

[DarthRevan]

1. When have you ever seen Commonwealth police officers "supporting the infringement of our rights"? On T.V., The steps of the Statehouse? Where?
2. Being immersed in L.E. for over three decades in this state, I can tell you the overwhelming majority of boots on the ground cops are very pro 2A and not just for themselves.
3. For MCOPA and in some individual Chiefs to step up and publicly raise the alarm to defend YOUR 2A rights is indeed unprecedented. Again, please stop perpetuating myths in regards to those sworn to defend them.

And how many of those boots are willing to lose the paycheck to do what’s right? Look at how many took the jab to keep being paid. Do you think they’d be any better at not arresting someone for an unconstitutional “crime”?

This isn’t meant to be anti cop, I just know money talks.

 

[Darksideblues42]

Perhaps because like us, they too have had enough!?!? Besides they're not legislators either. But enjoy directing your sarcasm at somebody.

If you are a LEO, did you take advantage of the carve outs in the law due to your vocation? Or did you limit yourself to the same firearms and magazines available to the class of folks who did not choose to participate in a law enforcement career?

Because if you were truly bothered by the inequities of the system, you would have voluntarily eschewed the privileges your vocation afforded you.

 

[BigTimber]

1. When have you ever seen Commonwealth police officers "supporting the infringement of our rights"? On T.V., The steps of the Statehouse? Where?

 

[BigTimber]

If the cops weren’t being treated like the commoners this time they wouldn’t be saying shit. How many city’s and towns in MA? And how many are saying boo? 2, 3? Well I am blown the F away At the bravery and steadfast adherence to the constitution for which they pledged a oath to uphold

 

[nin7474]

State house to remain closed tomorrow, WED 7/19 after fire in the basement

State House in Boston evacuated for basement fire, will remain closed on Wednesday, officials say

 

[Reptile]

State house to remain closed tomorrow 7/19 after fire in the basement

State House in Boston evacuated for basement fire, will remain closed on Wednesday, officials say
State House in Boston evacuated for basement fire, will remain closed on Wednesday, officials say

How unfortunate.

Now, they will run out of time to pass the bill this session.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk7Jjl3qX5o

 

[AmeriKHAN]

I'm sorry to say this but, this legislation WILL pass with flying colors. Maura Healey will sign it into law. Our only hope at this point is NOT to challenge it at the state level but the FEDERAL level under Bruen.

 

[Quantavious G]

Perhaps because like us, they too have had enough!?!? Besides they're not legislators either. But enjoy directing your sarcasm at somebody.

I really would like to think that's the case. The cynic in me feels otherwise though.

 

[EJFudd]

State house to remain closed tomorrow, WED 7/19 after fire in the basement

State House in Boston evacuated for basement fire, will remain closed on Wednesday, officials say

Looks like God is on our side!

 

[Mesatchornug]

Looks like God is on our side!

Didn't they hold hold hearings by zoom for nearly two years? Do you really believe they won't do the same if there's work they feel needs to get done?

 

[weatherby]

1. When have you ever seen Commonwealth police officers "supporting the infringement of our rights"? On T.V., The steps of the Statehouse? Where?
2. Being immersed in L.E. for over three decades in this state, I can tell you the overwhelming majority of boots on the ground cops are very pro 2A and not just for themselves.
3. For MCOPA and in some individual Chiefs to step up and publicly raise the alarm to defend YOUR 2A rights is indeed unprecedented. Again, please stop perpetuating myths in regards to those sworn to defend them.

How about when Maura decided to reinterpret law ?
Is that a good enough when

 

[Taipan01]

I suppose I am pointing out the obvious but do any of our reps feel that Day, the author of it, may have his thumb on the scale by damn near demanding that the document moves through a committee that he chairs. Didn't we get enough of this noise from the last what, 6 years involving Trump and all the one-sided bloviating and suppression from identical procedures and chairmanships. It gets so tiring.

 

[freddieMA]

Another positive moment from Judge Saylor occurred during the discussion of the preliminary injunction. The state contended that the plaintiffs hadn't proven irreparable harm. However, Judge Saylor correctly pointed out that irreparable harm is essentially just assumed in cases involving fundamental rights, likening it to a ban on books. Although this is encouraging, I'm unsure if Judge Saylor is convinced of the merits of our case.

the basic reason i declined to speculate above is what does a man, when faced with this, bruen, and the breadth of h.4420 decide to do?

perhaps plaintiffs lawyers can do a better job at trial, looks like they need to.

but i gather the overall bet is that other cases hit scotus first, and may render this moot.

 

[freddieMA]

I suppose I am pointing out the obvious but do any of our reps feel that Day, the author of it, may have his thumb on the scale by damn near demanding that the document moves through a committee that he chairs. Didn't we get enough of this noise from the last what, 6 years involving Trump and all the one-sided bloviating and suppression from identical procedures and chairmanships. It gets so tiring.

one of the defining features of our age is that with increased polarization, you should never expect internal consistency in arguments. you'd hope that the last stand would be in the judicial branch, because it sure ain't in the legislative or the executive.

 

[Roadglide]

Well, I'm certainly glad so many folks on here continue to focus on cop-bashing, even at a time like this. Keep it up, it helps the other side.

Let's face it, if everyone who owns firearms in Massachusetts keeps wasting time pointing fingers at ANYBODY beside the legislature, you get what you deserve. We might as well all start model railroading as a hobby, cuz that'll be all that's left when they are through with us. We may lose the first couple of battles and it may become a law in the Commonwealth, but start using your keyboards to educate, inform, and yes even attack. As long as you stop attacking the wrong folks.

The wrong folks You do realize the police ARE the legislators. But by all means continue to believe the police are going to bail us out.

 

[Grendizer138]

And how many of those boots are willing to lose the paycheck to do what’s right? Look at how many took the jab to keep being paid. Do you think they’d be any better at not arresting someone for an unconstitutional “crime”?

This isn’t meant to be anti cop, I just know money talks.

Exactly zero will risk their pension. Some will even gleefully enforce it once it passes.

But for now accept the help.

 

[graphite]

I want allies now; if they turn next year they’re no longer allies. Not sure why that’s so disagreeable, but you do you.

Here’s the thing, though: we’re not wrong.

MA gun laws have been unconstitutional for decades. The cops have kept their mouths shut until now. Why is that, do you think?

I hold some of the same concerns as many of you that are wary of this new found alliance.

For now, I remain hopeful until and unless evidence proves otherwise that we will be sold out.

I'm thinking of this as akin to the alliance in WW2 between the U.S. and the Soviets - The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Once the evil is defeated, we can go back to our regularly scheduled squabbles and animosity if we desire.

 

[Woodsloafer]

And how many of those boots are willing to lose the paycheck to do what’s right? Look at how many took the jab to keep being paid. Do you think they’d be any better at not arresting someone for an unconstitutional “crime”?

This isn’t meant to be anti cop, I just know money talks.

We can't even get a sizable turnout at a rally because people won't or can't take a single day off from work, nevermind risk their jobs. The police aren't our problem, we are our problem.

 

[Mesatchornug]

We can't even get a sizable turnout at a rally because people won't or can't take a single day off from work, nevermind risk their jobs. The police aren't our problem, we are our problem.

Never forget

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

We were Americans once.

 

[Woodsloafer]

Never forget

We were Americans once.

We were, until we became slaves to our jobs, houses, and payments.

(Myself included)

 

[HARRYM]

We can't even get a sizable turnout at a rally because people won't or can't take a single day off from work, nevermind risk their jobs. The police aren't our problem, we are our problem.

Indeed, years ago when we accepted having Police, Politicians and Judges decide what Constitutional Rights we could have we stepped on that proverbial slope.

 

[Mesatchornug]

We were, until we became slaves to our jobs, houses, and payments.

(Myself included)

I can't claim to be much better.

But we can, as ever, strive to be "more perfect."

 

[Picton]

Perhaps because like us, they too have had enough!?!? Besides they're not legislators either. But enjoy directing your sarcasm at somebody.

It's not sarcasm. I'm being completely serious.

This same thing happened last time there was a big gun bill: the legislature didn't exempt cops, a few chiefs spoke up, the bill was rewritten to give you back your carve-outs, and the chiefs nodded and said, "Cool."

Same. Thing.

If it's wrong to apply these draconian laws to cops (and it is, I think), then it's also wrong to apply them to the rest of the citizens in the Commonwealth. The chiefs don't appear to agree with that, once the rubber meets the road. They are happy to get their carve-out, and they don't care all that much about the rest of the citizens. It's happened before; now, it's happening again.

EVERY MA gun law is an infringement. A department that cares about the Constitution would never have complied with licensure, and would be forcefully arguing for its abolition. No department does that; in fact, many of them, for many years, abused that process in order to deny RKBA. I'm not forgetting that just because you wish I would.

 

[Picton]

Well, I'm certainly glad so many folks on here continue to focus on cop-bashing, even at a time like this. Keep it up, it helps the other side.

Let's face it, if everyone who owns firearms in Massachusetts keeps wasting time pointing fingers at ANYBODY beside the legislature, you get what you deserve. We might as well all start model railroading as a hobby, cuz that'll be all that's left when they are through with us. We may lose the first couple of battles and it may become a law in the Commonwealth, but start using your keyboards to educate, inform, and yes even attack. As long as you stop attacking the wrong folks.

I'll just add: before Bruen, there was thread after thread after thread on this site, complaining about PDs dragging their feet with licensure (in violation of the legislature's laws, mind), or adding additional licensing requirements the legislature didn't include, or gleefully handing out restrictions meant to neuter RKBA, and being completely unresponsive to citizens who asked those PDs for redress.

NONE of that was "the legislature." Every one of those infringements was done by PDs. So perhaps you should forgive us if some of us are a wee bit skeptical about the PDs' motives here.

They're still in the penalty box for a lot of us. It'll take some time for them to prove their support for RKBA is genuine, instead of just lip service designed to maintain a separate, privileged system for cops. If more chiefs speak up, that would help. If they don't pipe down after they get their carve-outs (because they most certainly will), that would help even more.