Massachusetts Legislature Voting on Anti-Civil Rights Bill TODAY!

[Mark from MA]

maybe all you in MA should start calling your local CoPs and letting them know their workload is about to go up for no good reason. Then the CoPs can call the legislators and pressure them to stop this nonsense

I just did that......my chief said he already knew about it and was against it.

I can bet hes in the minority.....and MCOPA will probably kiss the ring

 

[Mark from MA]

So true Mark. When circling around SC and NC in April I had a smile on my face at the sights. Similar to where we are now but without the politics and unfettered pressure from Beacon Hill.

Goes to show we must come from tryanny to protect freedoms. Alot of immigrants that came from socialist and communist countries are the most ardent supporters of liberty here.

MA is a different world than most of the rest of the country.....and that's a good thing.

 

[Mark from MA]

I see the main purpose of the Amendment as circumventing Bruen via greater/more frequent license hassle and applicant intimidation via the new interrogation thang.

The double-the-cost money bonus is just icing on the cake.

View attachment 641043

Its a direct kick in the balls to taxpaying citizens in this state for a supreme court ruling that the Cxnts didn't like.

Direct punishment for getting freedom......and this is what 146 of your state representatives think of you as voters.

All done in the name of retribution........at a cost or time and money we now have to bear. They truly hate us, yet we pay for them. f***ing sick.

 

[silversquirrel]

I see the main purpose of the Amendment as circumventing Bruen via greater/more frequent license hassle and applicant intimidation via the new interrogation thang.

The double-the-cost money bonus is just icing on the cake.

View attachment 641043

Exactly. A direct knee jerk reactionary response to a valid Supreme Cout ruling, that they dont like.

 

[Noreaster]

Wondering out loud, Can (re)actions, that are a direct result of Bruen, AND create more hassle for license holders - be grounds for a lawsuit? I guess proving the reactions are are direct result from Bruen is circumstantial at best. (unless a politician outright said it).

 

[Bladerunner]

Everyone should focus on this section of the proposed new licensing laws, specifically (vii)

SECTION XX. Said subsection (d) of said section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out clauses (vii) through (x), inclusive, and inserting in place thereof the following clauses: -

(vii) poses a risk of danger to their self or others by having in their control, ownership or possession a weapon, feeding device or ammunition;

(viii) is currently the subject of an outstanding arrest warrant in any state or federal jurisdiction;

(ix) has been discharged from the armed forces of the United States under dishonorable conditions;

(x) is a fugitive from justice; or

(xi) having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced that citizenship.


The proposed changes to subsection d are changes to statutory disqualifiers that historically have been separate and distinct from the definition MA used for suitability, which is also included at the end of subsection d and which remains relatively unchanged except for a sentence with the word "discretion" in it.

Note that the change above removes four clauses, but adds an extra one, clause (vii). Read that carefully to see what is happening here. That sentence is about as broad as can be. If you think it sounds like a form of suitability you are correct. It is no different than how suitability is already ill defined. Suitability standards are specifically designed to keep firearms out of the hands of an applicants that "poses a risk of danger to their self or others", therefore, it is by all manners of logic, a suitability clause. There is no definition of what "poses a risk of danger" means, or, how it is determined. It is as wide open as the southern border!

The language around suitability changes slightly to exclude the phrase with "discretion" present:

The current language is as follows:

The licensing authority may deny the application or renewal of a license to carry, or suspend or revoke a license issued under this section if, in a reasonable exercise of discretion, the licensing authority determines that the applicant or licensee is unsuitable to be issued or to continue to hold a license to carry. A determination of unsuitability shall be based on:

It will now read:

The licensing authority may deny the application or renewal of a license to carry, or suspend or revoke a license issued under this section if the applicant or licensee is unsuitable to be issued or to continue to hold a license to carry. A determination of unsuitability shall be based on:

This is a defensive tactic to try and shield "suitability" from future lawsuits correctly claiming that such a scheme is discretionary and thus not allowed under Bruen.

The more important point is that clause (vii) has now been added to the traditional list of objective and discreet statutory disqualifiers in a brazen attempt to keep that unconstitutional provision as insulated as possible from the inevitable future attack on suitability broadly.

I would love to see Comm2A, GOAL, or whatever group is responding to this fockery, highlight this point emphatically and repeatedly. Let these faggots know, that we know, exactly what they are doing. They know suitability is going down sooner or later, but by adding this new incredibly vague and open ended clause in this subsection, they think they can circumvent the inevitable.

Well, I shall think not.

 

[Waher]

Wondering out loud, Can (re)actions, that are a direct result of Bruen, AND create more hassle for license holders - be grounds for a lawsuit? I guess proving the reactions are are direct result from Bruen is circumstantial at best. (unless a politician outright said it).

When the onerous licensing requirements start disproportionally creating delays in communities from the local PDs inability or unwillingness to process applications and renewals in a timely fashion I think there could be a case.

I also don't think charging a fee for a license to exercise a numerated civil right is Constitutional either. But this is the same state that charges people fees to exercise their right to appeal fines even if they prevail because the state was in error. So don't get your hopes up short of federal enforcement.

Everyone should focus on this section of the proposed new licensing laws, specifically (vii)

(vii) poses a risk of danger to their self or others by having in their control, ownership or possession a weapon, feeding device or ammunition;
......
The more important point is that clause (vii) has now been added to the traditional list of objective and discreet statutory disqualifiers in a brazen attempt to keep that unconstitutional provision as insulated as possible from the inevitable future attack on suitability broadly.

That's the same arbitrary and capricious bullshit in drag being laundered in mental health style language. A marsupial creature playing dress up in black robes might buy that, a federal judge probably won't. Short of someone having a documented mental health disqualifier for being involuntarily confined, which by statute already is a no go for licensing, that language is already non-SCotUS kosher.

 

[Bladerunner]

Yes, a pre-emptive red flag provision, that is a backdoor to keep suitability alive.

 

[LLF]

H. 5046 is nothing more than a legislative temper tantrum from a bunch of spoiled children who were just told "no".
They are absolutely furious over the last 2 SCOTUS rulings -- first they were told they can't restrict firearms licenses and a day later Roe got overruled.
Not being able to accept these "losses" (as they perceive them) they set about to get some revenge. And what easier target (as always) than the hapless gun owners of Massachusetts?

 

[EJFudd]

Wondering out loud, Can (re)actions, that are a direct result of Bruen, AND create more hassle for license holders - be grounds for a lawsuit? I guess proving the reactions are are direct result from Bruen is circumstantial at best. (unless a politician outright said it).

I fear that the term change (6 years to 3 years) and resulting cost increase are no different from what the legislature can do on any state permit or license. It may be an interesting (and ugly) coincidence that it follows Bruen by mere days, but I don't see how it is grounds for a lawsuit.

The other crap is clearly an in-your-face attempt to circumvent and defeat Bruen... disguised as a "wink-wink" attempt to comply with Bruen.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Probably by design, if they double the licensing load, it'll take twice as long to get them thus depriving you of their rights. They want you squeezing blood out of a rock because your hand will get tired before the blood comes out.

It's just one more 9mm LungBlower in the high capacity magazine the USSC will have to blow all licensure out of the water. Sadly, Thomas won't blow MA directly out of teh water. Challenge in NY or CA is far more likely. But the legislatures will end up pushing the court to a place that was better left untouched by teh Dems.

And then some dolt on PrimeTime2020Live or something will FINALLY ask the question of some Dim Dum Dem - "Was it better to just leave it the F alone?" LOL

 

[Dennis in MA]

I fear that the term change (6 years to 3 years) and resulting cost increase are no different from what the legislature can do on any state permit or license. It may be an interesting (and ugly) coincidence that it follows Bruen by mere days, but I don't see how it is grounds for a lawsuit.

The other crap is clearly an in-your-face attempt to circumvent and defeat Bruen... disguised as a "wink-wink" attempt to comply with Bruen.

It won't be challenged directly as NY/CA have a lot more $ and stupidity behind them to be challenged. What IS a problem is: Undue burden for a constitutional right. Wait until CHEOPS - god of lazy workers is backed up so much that you apply 3 months before license expiration and you don't get it for 6 months after. When will that be? Probably within 4 years. But the CA/NY thing will be far sooner and will push the SC to clarify the "sit the F down and shut hte F up" nature of Bruen.

 

[sig shooter]

When I emailed my rep, I framed the 3 year reduction as a racist cheap shot at inner city minorities(which it is), that will not be able to afford their constitutional rights. We need to work it from every angle and use their own wokeness against them.

 

[DJBrad]

MA is a different world than most of the rest of the country.....and that's a good thing.

Difference will be starkly different as our dreams of a smaller federal government and mean reversion to restore a Constitutional Republic are realized……wait…what? Hyper polarization will happen going forward as states begin their move away from one another based on vastly different views and idealogies. We have not been so polarized as far as I remember.

 

[GaryO]

I stopped emailing my Rep because I was sick and tired of getting his condescending bullshit reply about how he understands my point but represents everyone. I called him out on it and asked him to send me information on what he has done to help more conservative members of his district, I never received a reply.

 

[Waher]

I fear that the term change (6 years to 3 years) and resulting cost increase are no different from what the legislature can do on any state permit or license. It may be an interesting (and ugly) coincidence that it follows Bruen by mere days, but I don't see how it is grounds for a lawsuit.

It’s a license for exercising a civil right. That’s different than a professional license or a license to exercise a privilege. Imagine a state delaying marriage licenses for gay couples. Do you think that would fly for very long?

When I emailed my rep, I framed the 3 year reduction as a racist cheap shot at inner city minorities(which it is), that will not be able to afford their constitutional rights. We need to work it from every angle and use their own wokeness against them.

The Middlesex gun control cabal is extremely racist. Gun control started in 1909 in MA as discrimination against poor Italians.

 

[Picton]

It won't be challenged directly as NY/CA have a lot more $ and stupidity behind them to be challenged. What IS a problem is: Undue burden for a constitutional right. Wait until CHEOPS - god of lazy workers is backed up so much that you apply 3 months before license expiration and you don't get it for 6 months after. When will that be? Probably within 4 years. But the CA/NY thing will be far sooner and will push the SC to clarify the "sit the F down and shut hte F up" nature of Bruen.

I think this will happen.

The system will get so hopelessly backlogged, so quickly, that no CoP will really be able to keep up.

Hell, it’s already backlogged. I’m renewing in 2024, meaning the new law puts me out of compliance already.

 

[GaryO]

I think this will happen.

The system will get so hopelessly backlogged, so quickly, that no CoP will really be able to keep up.

Hell, it’s already backlogged. I’m renewing in 2024, meaning the new law puts me out of compliance already.

I have to renew in spring of 23, should I get the ball rolling?

 

[Mesatchornug]

I think this will happen.

The system will get so hopelessly backlogged, so quickly, that no CoP will really be able to keep up.

Hell, it’s already backlogged. I’m renewing in 2024, meaning the new law puts me out of compliance already.

Same.

Fortunately, these are exactly the kinds of moves Thomas warned against in Bruen...

 

[Bladerunner]

To reiterate from Bruen:

Rather, it appears that these shall-issue regimes, which often require applicants to undergo a background check or pass a firearms safety course, are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ibid. And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.

 

[Bladerunner]

This is the money line from the case Shuttlesworth v Birmingham referenced in Bruen relating to "narrow, objective, and definite standards" guiding licensing officials:

Held:

1. A law subjecting the right of free expression in publicly owned places to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards is unconstitutional, and a person faced with such a law may ignore it and exercise his First Amendment rights. Pp. 394 U. S. 150-151.

Now replace First Amendment with Second Amendment.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

So if they voted yesterday what happened?

 

[Mesatchornug]

So if they voted yesterday what happened?

Sounds like it passed the house. Next, to the senate...

 

[Garys]

They don't care if it's racist against those blacks. They'll just trot out some of the pet "community activists" to tell everyone how this will make black communities much safer.

Just call it "Racist" against poor blacks and watch.

 

[Mark from MA]

So if they voted yesterday what happened?

146-7........in the house. Even some Douche repubs voted for it so they could probably say it was Bipartisan We lost big time. As usual.

Now goes to Senate for a sure rubber stamp of approval.

 

[Mark from MA]

They don't care if it's racist against those blacks. They'll just trot out some of the pet "community activists" to tell everyone how this will make black communities much safer.

That is the narrative.....makes us much safer.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I think this will happen.

The system will get so hopelessly backlogged, so quickly, that no CoP will really be able to keep up.

Hell, it’s already backlogged. I’m renewing in 2024, meaning the new law puts me out of compliance already.

The amendment passed states that LTCs issued prior to enactment of the law are valid until the expiration date they were given when issued.

 

[Garys]

No. I don't even think that a suit regarding the changes in the law is particularly viable. States have the right to set the conditions for issuing permits as long as they don't violate Bruen. The only thing that MIGHT be violative is the list of "suitability" criteria.

When my son lived in AL, the CCW permit had to be renewed every year. Of course it took all of five minutes at the courthouse and cost $35.00. PA is $20.00 for five years. NH I think is $10.00 for residents, but I forget the term.

Wondering out loud, Can (re)actions, that are a direct result of Bruen, AND create more hassle for license holders - be grounds for a lawsuit? I guess proving the reactions are are direct result from Bruen is circumstantial at best. (unless a politician outright said it).

 

[Mark from MA]

Difference will be starkly different as our dreams of a smaller federal government and mean reversion to restore a Constitutional Republic are realized……wait…what? Hyper polarization will happen going forward as states begin their move away from one another based on vastly different views and idealogies. We have not been so polarized as far as I remember

None of us remember it....but 1861 was a fairly polarized year in US history if I remember right.

Well.....I take that back one eyed Jack may remember it.

 

[safetyfirst2125]

This is why licensing of a right guaranteed in the very text of the Constitution is insane.

Want to deny purchases to prohibited persons? Fine. Still don’t need licenses.