-
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.
Redo MA gun laws!
- Thread starter Coyote33
- Start date
IMO I think a bigger problem than gun owners or non gun owners who
are "antis" is the sheer ignorance or lack of interest surrounding the
issues. People tend not to care when they're not even remotely familiar
with whatever it is that's at stake. I know this because "I was one
of them". Not an anti, but at an earlier point in my life I had a level of
apathy about the whole thing. It was only upon going through the BS
to get my license, and becoming a "real" gun owner did I truly understand
how bad these laws are.
It's very difficult, or nearly impossible for anyone to care about what happens
to firearms ownership if that person does not have a vested interest. Most
voters in MA, for instance, don't give a rats ass one way or the other about
how a given candidate is on gun rights/laws. They're too fixated on all
the other BS thats going on. Most anti gun BS gets passed because of
lack of opposition, not because of its support base. The support base of
the antis is actually pretty weak, most of the anti pet tricks are done by
small lobbying groups cajoling liberal or statist authoritarian politicians into
adopting their agendas. When the people say nothing or do not complain,
the laws go into play.
How's that quote go? "Evil triumphs, when good men do nothing." or something
to that effect... that's certainly the case WRT gun rights. It's sad that there
is somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 million gun owners in the US... if even a third
of that owner base "did something" we could crush any/all anti gun opposition right
out of the gate. Even the NRA which is the biggest group, only represents like a
tiny fraction of gun owners.....
-Mike
are "antis" is the sheer ignorance or lack of interest surrounding the
issues. People tend not to care when they're not even remotely familiar
with whatever it is that's at stake. I know this because "I was one
of them". Not an anti, but at an earlier point in my life I had a level of
apathy about the whole thing. It was only upon going through the BS
to get my license, and becoming a "real" gun owner did I truly understand
how bad these laws are.
It's very difficult, or nearly impossible for anyone to care about what happens
to firearms ownership if that person does not have a vested interest. Most
voters in MA, for instance, don't give a rats ass one way or the other about
how a given candidate is on gun rights/laws. They're too fixated on all
the other BS thats going on. Most anti gun BS gets passed because of
lack of opposition, not because of its support base. The support base of
the antis is actually pretty weak, most of the anti pet tricks are done by
small lobbying groups cajoling liberal or statist authoritarian politicians into
adopting their agendas. When the people say nothing or do not complain,
the laws go into play.
How's that quote go? "Evil triumphs, when good men do nothing." or something
to that effect... that's certainly the case WRT gun rights. It's sad that there
is somewhere in the neighborhood of 80 million gun owners in the US... if even a third
of that owner base "did something" we could crush any/all anti gun opposition right
out of the gate. Even the NRA which is the biggest group, only represents like a
tiny fraction of gun owners.....
-Mike
Last edited:
While it's nice to play "mountain man" and not have to worry about the laws,
that's not reality. Most of us are willing to accept dealing with BS laws
on some term or another because it's better than not having access to guns at all.
Course that differs for everyone, depending on one's point of view... ergo,
the words of Heinlein-
But I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
You are correct, we shouldn't have to deal with any of that. I agree that
most of the gun laws are bad and should be done away with. There has
been precedent for "reasonable regulation" for constitutional rights, and even
under that example, 95% of the current gun laws are not "reasonable
regulation" by any stretch of the imagination.
This, however, is not current reality, and even the most "libertarian"
among us still realize that in some cases the path of least resistance is often
the more productive one. Getting thrown in prison for a million years for
carrying/buying a gun illegally is not productive in regards to earning back
one's overall freedom. (There's a term for this conundrum, which I can't
think of off the top of my head.... the idea being that expressing ones
freedom in an irresponsible manner actually ends up detracting from the overall
goal instead of adding to it. )
-Mike
The point is that the majority including some gun owners as evidenced above agree with gun regulation.
I am aware of reality and I personally abide by ALL laws regarding firearms.
The laws in this state are a reflection on the overall attitude involving guns. In most states simply purchasing a firearm does not require a license of any sort. Carrying concealed yes, but not purchase. Most people in this state agree that individuals should have a license (permission) from the State to buy a gun. Many gun owners in this state agree.
It's not totally without merit that the inhabitants of most of the rest of the country feel that people from MA are nuts.
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
This is a mixed bag for me. I do believe a person should have "adequate" training when it comes to owning, using, carrying firearms. The thing is, back in the day, everyone owned firearms and it was a given that use and safety was passed down from father to son (and others).
Since that is no longer the case (for the majority) where do we draw the line?
Travel is also supposed to be unrestricted but we all have to have drivers training and pass a test to get a drivers license.
This is all done so that exercising your right does not hamper the safety of others exercising theirs.
This sounds like a problem. They don't participate in a forum with some of their greatest supporters and critics (devil's advocates)? GOAL is missing an opportunity.
In any event, this thread has drifted enough.
![[offtopic]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/038.gif "Off Topic [offtopic]")
This thread is about what laws you would change, and how you would change (rewrite) them. Anyone have any other law changes to add?
Last edited:
I think a safty class should be required to purchase firearms, this course should be offered for FREE by the state police and any towns that wishes to provide the service, and be run frequently enough to not be a big inconvinence. A clause should be added to the law that says if that class isn't offered within 30 miles of your home within 30 days of application you are to be issued a temporary FID. This would ensure that departments actually run the class. Run a NICS check if it comes back clear you get your FID card valid for Life.
NICS check should be run at each purchase. FID card should allow you to purchase every gun (including handguns) in all capacities. The next time you renew your drivers license an "endorsement" should be added so you don't have to carry your FID again.
LTC should only be required to conceal carry, should be shall issue, the fee should be much lower and be valid for life. Same deal with the DL, next renewal a symbol of some sort should be added so you don't need to carry 2 cards. THis would also ensure your picture is occationally updated.
Also if you are arrested and tried for murder (or attempted, or assault etc) in a self defense case, have no prior record, and win the DA's office should be required to reimberse you for you leagal costs, whether or not you used a court appointed lawer. I think fewer self defense cases would make it to trial that way, and you shouldn't be made a criminal for protecting your right to life.
NICS check should be run at each purchase. FID card should allow you to purchase every gun (including handguns) in all capacities. The next time you renew your drivers license an "endorsement" should be added so you don't have to carry your FID again.
LTC should only be required to conceal carry, should be shall issue, the fee should be much lower and be valid for life. Same deal with the DL, next renewal a symbol of some sort should be added so you don't need to carry 2 cards. THis would also ensure your picture is occationally updated.
Also if you are arrested and tried for murder (or attempted, or assault etc) in a self defense case, have no prior record, and win the DA's office should be required to reimberse you for you leagal costs, whether or not you used a court appointed lawer. I think fewer self defense cases would make it to trial that way, and you shouldn't be made a criminal for protecting your right to life.
Cato...When I said I would compromise, the key phrase is "as long as I get something in return for my compromise". All that gunowners have given up, where have we ever "gained" anything while "compromising away our God given rights? Or at least making them more difficult to secure. The anti-gun crowd is great at putting out demands, "sensible" gun laws, etc. But we are never thrown a bone! Compromise to them is a one way street. Sure, I'll compromise, but give me something of equal or greater value.
TonyD
One Shot One Maggie's Drawers
Cato - I hear what you're saying and I think I understand exactly where you're coming from. However, you also have to remember that one person's right can not endanger the rest of our (the people's) rights (or our safety).
As you do, I believe no one should be required to have permission granted to them by some agency to "purchase" or "own" a firearm. I do believe that proper training is a common sense issue before one uses or carries a firearm. Where the burden of the cost should lie, I'm not sure.
Don't you think they would have gone for that if it had a snowball's chance in hell of passing?
How many of our state legiscritters do you think are pro-gun? And do you think our new governor is pro-gun?
He definately is not. I have a friend who told me he knows someone who knows our new Gov. Both of them are gun owners. My bud said the other guy was talking up Deval when he was first running. My bud asked him what Deval's stance was on guns. 2nd guy didn't know, but said he'd talk to him. Well, 2nd guy talked to him and reported back. He's against guns. So, my buddy asked him, "So you're still going to support him if he's against guns and there's a possibility that he'll make the laws worse?" 2nd guy says yes, as long as the things he (2nd guy) supports is enacted by Deval (2nd guy, btw is a lib). My buddy says, "You'll sacrifice your guns??"
"Yes"
"Well, that's fine, but what gives you the right to sacrifice MY guns?"
2nd guy didn't have anything to say.
I just heard this a few days ago. Some gun owners are just too stupid to be gun owners.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 545
- Likes
- 177
"No non-military officer of the commonwealth shall at any time, including the course of their official duties, be authorized to make use of any weapon, weapon system, or ammunition unless citizens of the commonwealth not disqualified by federal law shall also be able to legally purchase newly manufactured versions of such weapon, weapon system, or ammunition. This shall apply to restrictions under both Federal and State law."
PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
TITLE XIX. AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION
CHAPTER 131. INLAND FISHERIES AND GAME AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES
Chapter 131: Section 67. Rifles, revolvers and pistols; caliber
Section 67. A person shall not use or possess, where birds or mammals may be found, any rifle chambered to take larger than twenty-two long rifle ammunition, or any revolver or pistol chambered to take larger than thirty-eight caliber ammunition between the hours of one half hour after sunset to one half hour before sunrise of any day throughout the year.
Good question, and one I wouldnt mind hearing the answer to as well, thoughts? btw, birds and mammale MAY be found in my back yard too, at any time of year...
Last edited:
RichM
Retired Army Veteran
It is sad that this thread is as relevant now as it was four years ago! I repped those I agreed with before I realized that this thread was that old!
GOAL has been at this for a LONG time; I'll continue to support them. I'll also support pro-gun candidates, and I'll continue to make them aware of WHY I support them. When other organizations, like Comm2A or SAF, come along, I'll support them as well.
I'll also join fora like this one to hone my thoughts and beliefs, and I'll continue to teach and encourage new shooters to enhance the exercise of our rights.
GOAL has been at this for a LONG time; I'll continue to support them. I'll also support pro-gun candidates, and I'll continue to make them aware of WHY I support them. When other organizations, like Comm2A or SAF, come along, I'll support them as well.
I'll also join fora like this one to hone my thoughts and beliefs, and I'll continue to teach and encourage new shooters to enhance the exercise of our rights.
RichM
Retired Army Veteran
Have you read the Outdoor Message? Every month they print the list of bills submitted that affect gun ownership. Some of those bills are the single-issue bills that you're asking for, and VERY FEW of them even come onto the floor for a vote. Even the anti-gun bills fail to come out of committee.
GOAL's comprehensive bill tried to correct a panoply of problems. Will it have a chance this year? I don't know, but I hope so, and I'll again tell our representatives that we want reform.
GOAL's comprehensive bill tried to correct a panoply of problems. Will it have a chance this year? I don't know, but I hope so, and I'll again tell our representatives that we want reform.
The trouble is that everybody focused on 2259 last year, instead of the individual bills. NES has been a great force for putting thoughts to action, and coordinating people together. I think if each bill had one or several champions, and they were given as much resources and attention as 2259 was, that more bills would have passed into laws. I have already picked a few I would like to see, and am going to try to focus on those this year. If everyone on NES did this, and pooled together where interests overlap, I think we could have a good thing going here.
i would change the following (taken from GOAL website-forgive me i can't copy and paste because GOAL is restricted at work): a person is eligible for a ltc 5 years after being treated for drug addiction with a physcians affidavit, but a person who has been convicted of possession of marijuana (which is no longer illegal to possess in mass state) is permanently ineligible. how are those 2 conditions not conflicting?
why has no one taken this on? is it a case of fearing that legislators would turn around and deny an even larger group of people? or has it just not been brought to anyone's attention?
why has no one taken this on? is it a case of fearing that legislators would turn around and deny an even larger group of people? or has it just not been brought to anyone's attention?
Bill Nance
Banned
Look, you've already got an organization that has put together a lot of changes to Mass gun laws. Get that document, take it down to your state Rep and start lobbying the Hell out of them. That's all you can do.
And sorry, most of what you guys want isn't going to happen anytime soon. As f***ed up as the gun laws are in that state, they are LESS restrictive than the majority of the population would probably like. by all means keep up the good fight, but don't expect to win.
And sorry, most of what you guys want isn't going to happen anytime soon. As f***ed up as the gun laws are in that state, they are LESS restrictive than the majority of the population would probably like. by all means keep up the good fight, but don't expect to win.
... their wallets.
People here from Northborough should be telling their Selectmen to not fund a legal defense to the lawsuit, if that is even possible. What are the demands, and what would giving in entail? What if one party wants out, but the others stay in?
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 6,022
- Likes
- 757
GOAL already does this and they need more support.
Starting a divided effort is not useful, especially when GOAL represents true freedom loving gun owners, they don't take money and waste it like so many other not for profits.
Starting a divided effort is not useful, especially when GOAL represents true freedom loving gun owners, they don't take money and waste it like so many other not for profits.
Please show me GOAL's lawsuit challenging discretionary licensing as unconstutional, oh wait, that was Comm2A. Legislative lobbying and constitutional litigation are two very different things. GOAL does the best job possible with the former and has no interest in doing the latter. Both organizations have stated that they're complimentary, not competitive.
Sent from my PG06100 using Tapatalk
