Night_solstice
NES Member
I know my wife and mother-in-law called just last Thursday for their LTC appt, and the officer said "I'd like to get you in early next week to get it submitted" so their appts are for Tuesday.
-
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.
The Conference Committee has sent official language out - h.4885
- Thread starter GOAL
- Start date
Harry Christopher
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2023
- Messages
- 425
- Likes
- 1,728
My guess is five months. I'd bet the over, though.
I suppose if one has sufficient discretionary funds available to draw upon and an unlimited amount of free time then they certainly could consider trying to find relief in the court system.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr once remarked “Courts are courts of law and not courts of justice”.
In the cold, surgical light of dawn it strikes me that the overriding reality we are all now facing is if the law itself is defective by it's very foundational nature then how can one rationally expect to find actual justice in a judicial proceeding arguing against the very validity of a law that the court is supposedly underpinned by?
Mrs. Christopher and I have held LTCs for 48 and 51 years respectively so the new currently not even yet written training requirements are not applicable to our future renewals. What I am concerned about is that this new legislation effectively disenfranchises any individual who chooses of their own volition to exercise their Constitutional Civil Right to own firearms.
As a student of history this sort of governmental overreach has not surprisingly been closely followed by more edicts that have had the very real effect of removing the freedom of its citizens to such an extent that the loss of same is sadly remembered around future campfires.
It would appear that in the short term the only viable means to attempt to defend this blatant abridgement of our Constitutional Civil Rights is to donate whatever funds that each person is able to do so to the Legal Gun Rights Organization of their choice. Beyond that we as a community are facing a rather unpleasant future on our immediate horizons.
matt2491
NES Member
It must be in the state (whether at your FFL or in your possession) on 8/1. That's the key.
Thank you this was a lot clearer than the other threads filled with banter.
HorizontalHunter
NES Member
I’m sure that the town will make a big difference him the interpretation.
It’s gonna suck now when new firearms come out and there’s a whole ton less people to discuss them on here.
I know that’s the least of everyone’s worries and it’s just awful for MA residents, this impingement on your freedoms. I’m just saying it’s going to have an impact on this forum, that’s kind of sad.
I know that’s the least of everyone’s worries and it’s just awful for MA residents, this impingement on your freedoms. I’m just saying it’s going to have an impact on this forum, that’s kind of sad.
I don't think long guns being roster mandated os a typo.... it's a quite intentional "f*** you" to gun owners. This entire bill is the result of petulant children throwing full meltdown temper tantrums because of Bruen etc.
Woodsloafer
NES Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 9,183
- Likes
- 16,164
They threw everything at the wall to see what sticks.
I don't even think they care about it sticking they just want the temper tantrum and to make people afraid. Which it will be quite successful at giving the pant shitting nature of most Mass gun owners.
JDL
NES Member
LGBTQlmnop or any other protected class would not make a diifence unless they were specifically being discriminated against. This action effects us all.
steve8140
NES Member
Thanks for the info. I work in NH and MA about a 50/50 split. Drive a lot but I make several stops a day.
Yes I do have a non resident LTC.
Being from MA, most my family is still there and we will spend a week there on occasion. But for the sake of the internet I always leave after a few days and come back later.
Except it does make a difference. This is a tactical situation. Having someone from a traditionally "marginalized" group standing up for our collective rights will carry FAR more weight in the press and court of public opinion than a bunch of middle aged straight white guys complaining about "mah Gunz" ever will.
I am not saying it is fair, but it is how the game is played, and it is about f***ing time we took the gloves off and started playing by the oppressors playbook.
JDL
NES Member
Please let us know how that comes together. I would be very curious. What town?
Woodsloafer
NES Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 9,183
- Likes
- 16,164
I think that is part of it was well, but the more shit they put in it the more lawsuits that have to be filed as it cannot be considered altogether, so they have made it as difficult as possible with how many new laws/regulations (when considered separately) there are. We are likely to be stuck with quite a bit of it regardless.
Rob Boudrie
NES Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 48,915
- Likes
- 36,378
The really know how to write "fill in the blank to interpret" or "assume to understand" laws.
Logadis from 131M
The law does not apply for retired LE not prohibited from receiving such a device on retirement - but nowhere in the law does it state that the "does not apply to" is limited only to AWS style weapons or magazines the retired LE possessed were actually received from the agency; only that the retiree was not prohibited from receiving such weapons and magazines upon retirement".
Hopefully, no one will be tactically ignorant to the point of filing one suit against the entire bill - thus risking a decision blessing all aspects of the law. It needs to be a targeted attack at specific items.
While I fully agree that it's a tantrum and they're trying to harass gun owners, don't discount incompetence.
e.g.:
- in sections 122, 123, and 124 of the legislsation they refer to "Section 269", when it's supposed to be "Chapter 269"
- Section 68 has some words missing:
they completely left out the word or phrase that gets replaced!
- The definition of "Assault-style firearm" refers to "the assault-style firearm roster pursuant to section 128A".
But 128A is about what an LTC holder can do. They meant 131M
- Ammo sales between individuals are both explicitly allowed and explicitly illegal:
122B(e) says it’s a crime to sell ammo.
128A(b) says an LTC holder may sell or transfer ammo
Maybe some of them is deliberate malicious incompetence to make it hard or impossible to follow, but I think some of it is actual "they're f***ing morons" incompetence.
They throw temper tantrums and are definitely retarded……and gay.
This state is really starting to piss me off.
I agree its "how about both". It's abundantly clear the people who wrote this shit didn't do it with a lawyer with a clue supervising.
I’m sorry but I’ve seen it be quite the opposite. Black conservatives speak up for their values and get called the black faces of white supremacy, for example.
The left doesn’t actually care about minorities and alphabet people and whoever else they pretend to. The left just cares about forcing everyone to adhere to their cause, whatever that may be, and the way they go about gaining power is through exploiting minorities and alphabet people and whoever else they can convince the soccer moms to feel bad for.
Fixed it
The AG has shit on glock and retailers a whole bunch of times for trying to obtain the mystical cmr940 "consumer safety" compliance. It's not even worth discussing at this point it's pretty obvious that the AG's office doesn't consider Glocks guns to be cmr940 compliant. Glock still roster tests their guns for other reasons but that has nothing to do with 940. 940 is a dogshit standard that has no firm testing. You cannot actually get a gun tested for 940 you just have to try to sell it and see if they stop you.
I’ve merged three threads.
NES is just gettin started.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2016
- Messages
- 643
- Likes
- 898
Even knowing how things get done in Massachusetts, I am still sometimes surprised by how things are done.
In my best understanding, the Bruen decision did not find that State licensing schemes are constitutional. Instead, Bruen states that nothing presented during that case showed that "shall issue" state licensing is unconstitutional. And since the basic aspects of State licensing schemes was not the question at hand, no further finding was being made on that point. I believe there was also a note, possibly in one justices concurrence, that the entire question of State licensing could be revisited if a State created requirements so onerous as to be de facto impossible.
I foolishly assumed that people trying to implement gun control would be very careful not to make any requirements that were so far across the line that the whole question of licensing by the States might be re-opened under a very harsh light. But it appears we are these. I guess I have underestimated the depths of human incompetence and temper tantrums.
In my best understanding, the Bruen decision did not find that State licensing schemes are constitutional. Instead, Bruen states that nothing presented during that case showed that "shall issue" state licensing is unconstitutional. And since the basic aspects of State licensing schemes was not the question at hand, no further finding was being made on that point. I believe there was also a note, possibly in one justices concurrence, that the entire question of State licensing could be revisited if a State created requirements so onerous as to be de facto impossible.
I foolishly assumed that people trying to implement gun control would be very careful not to make any requirements that were so far across the line that the whole question of licensing by the States might be re-opened under a very harsh light. But it appears we are these. I guess I have underestimated the depths of human incompetence and temper tantrums.
JDL
NES Member
This is so true.
alan226
NES Member
I could be wrong, but you are reading from the old 131M section. Bill 4885 says:
(e) This section shall not apply to transfer or possession by: (i) a qualified law enforcement officer or a qualified retired law enforcement officer, as defined in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. sections 926B and 926C, respectively, as amended; (ii) a federal, state or local law enforcement agency; or (iii) a federally licensed manufacturer solely for sale or transfer in another state or for export.
