• 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!

Moving isn’t the answer. By all means do so if you want, but freedom is only an election away and the demographics of all 50 are now (or soon will be) changing in favor of the commies.

You are being replaced because you reproduce too slowly and because you vote the wrong way. True Americans are too difficult to rule. It’s much easier to bring in peasants who are already trained to obey.
Sad, but true. :(

Isn't it funny how a small handful of young, murderous, mentally-ill nutcases can change the course of history for a nation of 300ish million people. It boggles my mind. But they aren't doing it alone. It takes help from lying, cheating leftist scum like Soros, BloomingTurd, et al... and, of course, Dementia Joe B and whoever the Hell is loading his teleprompter. :mad:
 
If this is going to be corrected (yeah, I know unlikley) the title would have to be something like "To reduce police LTC processing burden", not "To reduce imposition on civil rights".

I always cringe when I see bills from our side titled "An act to enhance civil rights" or something like that rather than the more appetizing "An act to further regulate" which is far more palatable to the MA politburo.
 
I am not sure if anyone mentioned this.
i-x Is regarding expired license being valid as long as a renew application has been filed. Deployed service member 180 day from return ect.

SECTION XX. Said section 131F of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out paragraphs (i) through (x).
 
I am not sure if anyone mentioned this.
i-x Is regarding expired license being valid as long as a renew application has been filed. Deployed service member 180 day from return ect.

SECTION XX. Said section 131F of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out paragraphs (i) through (x).

I think you’re talking about a separate section?
 
Oh I see you are correct. But it still odd removing all of the prohibited non resident requirements
 
I think they needed a quick FU for SCOTUS, and know they can really go to town once the dimpled one is crowned Queendyke.
Yep. 100% super-mega-majority deranged leftist DimocRAT control of the state without even the faintest fake hint of respect for our rights.

Prepare for Anti-2A Armageddon. :mad:
 
My "Hey i'm a gun owner too " Rep couldn't whip out the pen any faster to sign the red flag bill without tearing a muscle.
Remember this shit the next time they come sucking around for votes at your club.
Give them a hail and hearty GFYS.
You have Michael Moore also?
 
Correct.

If these Ma**h***s were really at all concerned, by now some of these legislators' houses would have burned to the ground, and some of their skulls would have been smashed by a well-swung piece of rebar.

I haven't seen any of this when Connecticut has passed new gun laws. [rofl]
 
I actually like this law…. Now the chief of police is required to talk to me in person… That was the entire basis of me yelling at him last time.

I really don’t even care other than he’s gonna have to put up with my bullshit

Paying the extra $200 is totally worth it now.
That’s gonna make us all safer
 
I actually like this law…. Now the chief of police is required to talk to me in person… That was the entire basis of me yelling at him last time.

I really don’t even care other than he’s gonna have to put up with my bullshit

Paying the extra $200 is totally worth it now.
That’s gonna make us all safer
What do you mean the "chief"???

I presume you mean his designee - the licensing officer.

Most Police Chiefs don't have time to meet with every applicant in a town or city every 3 years.

If this new law REALLY specifically means "CHIEF" - I can't imagine this actually happening even if it becomes law.
 
I actually like this law…. Now the chief of police is required to talk to me in person… That was the entire basis of me yelling at him last time.

I really don’t even care other than he’s gonna have to put up with my bullshit

Paying the extra $200 is totally worth it now.
That’s gonna make us all safer
Extra $100 over 6 years.
 

Democrat-Led MA House Seeks Even Tighter Gun Laws Following SCOTUS 2A Ruling​


The Democrat-led Massachusetts House of Representatives is pushing to force residents with a license to carry to renew twice as often and is expanding the prohibitions that prevent applicants from getting licenses to begin with.


The Boston Globe reports House Speaker Ronald Mariano (D) suggested that lawmakers are trying to make sure the state is in line with Supreme Court of the United States’ June 23, 2022 NYSRPA v. Bruen decision while “proactively safeguarding” other Massachusetts gun controls.

Continues...
 
Extra $100 over 6 years.
I never thought about it, do you think they shorten the length of machine gun licenses from six years to three as well? These politicians are so stupid they probably don’t even realize that you can get a Machinegun license
 
What do you mean the "chief"???

I presume you mean his designee - the licensing officer.

Most Police Chiefs don't have time to meet with every applicant in a town or city every 3 years.

If this new law REALLY specifically means "CHIEF" - I can't imagine this actually happening even if it becomes law.
That was my reading of it your licensing authority which is your local police chief..

The argument I just had with mine was based off the fact that he didn’t have time to talk to me because he was “busy”. He’s really not gonna like have an actually talk to everybody.. It’s a huge waste of his time
 
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]
The difference is that this time it is by their own admission a response in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court's opinion.
That said, because any permit-
ting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitu-
tional 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.

If the fee structure was self funding at $20/year then doubling it arbitrarily and also purposely overburdening the licensing staff to create longer waits is on its face an attempt to deny ordinary citizens.
 
Back
Top Bottom