• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Massachusetts Legislature Voting on Anti-Civil Rights Bill TODAY!

Rob Boudrie said:
There is still time to fix the expiration issue, but only if GOAL can lobby the MCOPA to request that the expiration provision be removed because of the adverse effects on departments. Requests from ordinaries will not be considered.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately GOAL is one little voice ina stadium of aholes
 
SFC13557 said:
Correct, she never even replies to my emails. She's a total POS, far left Dem! I don't call her office because I know it will just end up in a pissing contest.
Click to expand...
yeah.. all like that.. you may or may not get a reply.. phone calls are just as bad.. sadly I think it's gonna take a visit to their local office to have a face to face with them before they start reacting to the shit they're pulling. But like most of us who work, their office hours don't align with our off time.
 
Waher said:
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?


The Middlesex gun control cabal is extremely racist. Gun control started in 1909 in MA as discrimination against poor Italians.
Click to expand...
I knew about the old law but I didn’t know about the reasoning behind it. Where can I read more about it?

Digging through old laws, this was the oldest LTC law I could find:

Chapter 172, Acts of 1906

Chap.VJ2i An Act to regulate by license the carrying of con-
cealed WEAPONS.

Be it enacted, etc., as follows:

Section 1. The justice of a court, or trial justices,
the board of police or mayor of a city, or the selectmen
of a town, or persons authorized by them, respectively,
may, upon the application of any person, issue a license
to such person to carry a loaded pistol or revolver in this
Commonwealth, if it appears that the applicant has good
reason to fear an injury to his person or property, and
that he is a suitable person to be so licensed.

Section 2. Whoever, except as provided by the laws
of this Commonwealth, carries on his person a loaded
pistol or revolver, without authority or permission as pro-
vided in section one of this act, or whoever carries any
stiletto, dagger, dirk-knife, slung-shot or metallic knuckles,
shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not less than
ten nor more than one hundred dollars, or by imprison-
ment for a term not exceeding one year, or by both such
fine and imprisonment. Approved March 16, 1906.
Click to expand...
 
Is the gist of this mandatory interviews every 3 years? Is that right? And any chance this doesn't become law?
 
Hey, the police straight-up ignore the 40 day limit right? They laugh at the law, and there’s no penalty for the department if they take six months right?

Why can’t they just refuse to do interviews? Who will prevent that?

Why can’t we use the unlawful behavior and laziness of PDs to our benefit for once?
 
HuntMaine said:
Unfortunately GOAL is one little voice ina stadium of aholes
Click to expand...
All it takes is for the police lobby to make a request. One police request can kill a bill - just look at how the Katrina bill was deep sized when it was all but a fait accompli because it contained penalties for police officers that violated it.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
All it takes is for the police lobby to make a request. One police request can kill a bill - just look at how the Katrina bill was deep sized when it was all but a fait accompli because it contained penalties for police officers that violated it.
Click to expand...
I’ve got limited interest from my colleagues on the force both local and state. Most of those I talk to just either don’t care or are buying time until they retire. 3-4 years ago they would have supported the cause. I see that support gone now. Not sure what you arr seeing on your end.
 
HuntMaine said:
I’ve got limited interest from my colleagues on the force both local and state. Most of those I talk to just either don’t care or are buying time until they retire. 3-4 years ago they would have supported the cause. I see that support gone now. Not sure what you arr seeing on your end.
Click to expand...
I don't think most of us are counting on the po-po to kill this bill on moral or constitutional grounds. Lol.

I think most of us are thinking the bill will make them work harder for no good purpose, and they'll object to it for that reason.
 
Waher said:
It’s a license for exercising a civil right. That’s different than a professional license or a license to exercise a privilege.
Click to expand...
That may be so, but read again what I said. This is not a brand new license or fee. It's a change in the law regarding an existing state license. It happens all the time (unfortunately) at the whim of the legislature.

Now, if you are going to argue that we should not be charged at all for an LTC, I am with you. But, I think we lost that battle a long time ago. [thinking]
 
BostonVI said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that I don't think that this will make it into law this year.

This is mostly due to the fact that the Legislature has a lot to do within the next 9 days. The Governor has yet to kick back the FY23 state budget, and there are at least 8 active conference committees reconciling House vs. Senate versions of bills passed. That number is about to increase to 9 which will include an econ dev bill that just passed the Senate last night - this includes a provision allowing limited happy hour if that's interesting at all.

Assuming they can even get this all to the governor, he can still kick them all back and depending on timing may force the legislature to prioritize what they choose to override. If there was a month left in session, then I'd assume this to be a done deal, but given the time crunch it's entirely possible that the clock runs out and they have to try again next session, at which point it will definitely pass.
Click to expand...
Wishful thinking....but I think this passes with an obvious and easy veto proof majority. He won't have to sign it. They will ram it thru this session.
 
EJFudd said:
Now, if you are going to argue that we should not be charged at all for an LTC, I am with you. But, I think we lost that battle a long time ago. [thinking]
Click to expand...
That was before SCotUS identified the 2A as a core civil right no different than voting. Charging a fee for licenses now is no different than charging a poll tax.
 
microwave900 said:
I knew about the old law but I didn’t know about the reasoning behind it. Where can I read more about it?

Digging through old laws, this was the oldest LTC law I could find:

Chapter 172, Acts of 1906
Click to expand...
www.northeastshooters.com

1905 report advocating gun control in Mass.

Interesting bit was brought to my attention today found in the 1905 report of the State Police advocating for control of concealed weapons due to the vicious foreigners' customs.
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com

nstassel said:
Interesting bit was brought to my attention today found in the 1905 report of the State Police advocating for control of concealed weapons due to the vicious foreigners' customs.
Click to expand...
 
Picton said:
I can't wait until someone files that suit and rams it straight up through the courts...
Click to expand...
I'm surprised FPC/SAF didn't have a template ready to go in each circuit on that actually. Getting rid of financial incentives for f***ery would get rid of licensing entirely in several states. However in MA without the revenue incentive I think it might make things worse unless paired with a suit to prevent endless delays in processing.
 
Waher said:
I'm surprised FPC/SAF didn't have a template ready to go in each circuit on that actually. Getting rid of financial incentives for f***ery would get rid of licensing entirely in several states. However in MA without the revenue incentive I think it might make things worse unless paired with a suit to prevent endless delays in processing.
Click to expand...

They might. But they have to shop for the right defendant.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
He may be basing his position off of US v. Logan which the Feds claim establishes that although gun ownership is a right, it is not a civil right. I would expect him to stand up for a persons right to vote, hold public office and serve on a jury.
Click to expand...
oh he’s big on voting rights. His pet project is allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections. He also loved the famous tranny bathroom bill and the licenses for illegals bill. He’s big on all types of rights!
 
Picton said:
I don't think most of us are counting on the po-po to kill this bill on moral or constitutional grounds. Lol.

I think most of us are thinking the bill will make them work harder for no good purpose, and they'll object to it for that reason.
Click to expand...
I would agree with that. However towns will look at this as way to control the masses while pilfering some money off them
 
And California has moved a bit more off spectrum with this:
news.yahoo.com

Newsom signs gun law modeled after Texas abortion ban, setting up Supreme Court fight

The California governor signed a gun control bill Friday that mimics Texas' abortion ban. He also unveiled an ad targeting Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com

Can we see more full retard from these states? But didn’t we see this coming? I still stand by my original assessment that states will be increasingly divided until we see a SCOTUS under pressure to make changes.
 
djbradles said:
And California has moved a bit more off spectrum with this:
news.yahoo.com

Newsom signs gun law modeled after Texas abortion ban, setting up Supreme Court fight

The California governor signed a gun control bill Friday that mimics Texas' abortion ban. He also unveiled an ad targeting Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com

Can we see more full retard from these states? But didn’t we see this coming? I still stand by my original assessment that states will be increasingly divided until we see a SCOTUS under pressure to make changes.
Click to expand...

Any the law-fare battle continues...everybody needs to just stop telling everyone else WFT to do. Live your life and leave me the hell alone.
 

Similar threads

Bill H.4139
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ron Jablonski
R
NEW- Gun Grab Bill Six-member conference committee to decide Legislature's gun control proposal
Replies
24
Views
991
StevieP
StevieP
All Eyes on Congress As Veterans’ Gun Rights Up For Grabs
Replies
0
Views
124
Reptile
Reptile
Gun rights enthusiasts as Extremists
Replies
2
Views
326
StevieP
StevieP
3rd Circuit Denies Rehearing In SAF Pennsylvania Gun Rights Victory
Replies
1
Views
140
oldguy68
oldguy68
Back
Top Bottom