What monkey wrote these laws?!??!

[jdubois]

I'm doing my best to try and wrap my head around all these MA gun laws, and the state isn't helping! I'm reading the MA laws on licensed gun dealers, and I come across this little beauty.

MGL Chapter 140, Section 123 (from clause nineteen):

no licensee shall sell [...] any firearm [...] if such firearm is prone to accidental discharge which, for purposes of this clause, shall mean any make and model of firearm for which a sample of five firearms in new condition all undergo, and none discharge during, the following test [...]

Either I'm an idiot, or this text says that any gun that passes the prescribed test is "prone to accidental discharge", when what they meant to say is that any gun that passes this test ISN'T "prone to accidental discharge". So this law, as it reads, is saying the exact opposite of what it intended. Or, in other words, all guns on the EOPS list are not ok for dealers to sell and all guns not on it are.

So... if the laws, as written, aren't even correct, how the hell are we to know what the heck is what?

 

[pdm]

Scotch. Lots and lots of scotch.

 

[vicpinto]

Scotch. Lots and lots of scotch.

 

[drgrant]

Anyone have a pic collage of Cheryl Jaques (rhymes with fakes),
Jarret Barrios, Cynthia Creem, Linsky, Fargo, and maybe a dozen
or so others I'm missing? That would be the monkey family in
question. They should all be in prison. Then they'd be caged
monkeys. On the other hand, calling them monkeys
might be considered offensive to monkeys everywhere. If real
monkeys were writing the laws, we'd probably have more freedom.

-Mike

 

[Chris]

This was actually one of the original 'fixes' that was passed soon after 180 was signed. Was in the same legislation that 'fixed' the parade problem with having to have cases on long arms on a public way.

Hey, what do you expect for an 80 page bill fast tracked in about 2 weeks time? How long would it take you to figure out what was in it if 90% was written as:

"in paragraph X, strike Y after the word Z and insert ABC"

Now, how many lawmakers do you think actually DID that work as opposed to those that followed the 'leadership' and just rubber stamped the legislation?

Now, how many of those clueless legislators do you think were voted out by an electorate who would be pissed at them for not doing their job? If you think any number greater than 0 you are wrong.

 

[dwarven1]

Hey, what do you expect for an 80 page bill fast tracked in about 2 weeks time? How long would it take you to figure out what was in it if 90% was written as:

"in paragraph X, strike Y after the word Z and insert ABC"

Now, how many lawmakers do you think actually DID that work as opposed to those that followed the 'leadership' and just rubber stamped the legislation?

Given that Tom "Felon" Finneran was threatening every legistraitor who didn't vote his way with making sure that the towns & cities that said legistraitors represented got their state aid slashed, darn few would even bother - they just fell in line and obeyed their Massa.

 

[M1911]

I thought that this particular section of the law had been fixed a few months after Ch. 180 of the 1998 laws was passed. I recall that there was an error like this in the original. Is it possible that the web site has the old text and was not updated?

 

[jdubois]

This was actually one of the original 'fixes' that was passed soon after 180 was signed.

I thought that this particular section of the law had been fixed a few months after Ch. 180 of the 1998 laws was passed.

I guessed that might have been the case, but didn't want to wade through all the corrections and what not to find if there was a fix, because it was at that point that I said, "geez, how am I supposed to figure any of this out?!?!" and gave up.

Thanks for the replies though, it's nice to know there was at least a fix.

 

[Carguy]

Written and ammended during meetings with Glen Levitt, Glen Fidditch, Jack Daniels, Jim Bean and Jose Cuervo! What do you expect?

 

[Scrivener]

Massachusetts gun laws are written by those whose ignorance of firearms is exceeded only by their antipathy towards them.

Understand that and the rest follows.

 

[45 acp]

Does that mean they all dropped out of the same tree?

 

[gene]

Three!
See no English!
Hear no English!
Speak no English!

 

[Firetarr]

Scotch. Lots and lots of scotch.

Uncle Teddy? Is that you!?

 

[KMaurer]

If you stop and think about it a while, it's obvious that Massachusetts gun laws weren't written by a bunch of monkeys. If you sit a bunch of monkeys down at a bunch of typewriters as in the classical thought experiment, you'll notice a lot of obvious, logical patterns in their product: not a lot of spaces or punctuation; letter frequencies tend to correlate pretty heavily with their location on the keyboard; relatively few instances of isolated upper case letters (once upper case starts, it tends to run continuously just about as long as lower case strings), etc. With our gun laws, there's no evidence of logic or reason to be found anywhere.

Ken

 

[Scrivener]

If you stop and think about it a while, it's obvious that Massachusetts gun laws weren't written by a bunch of monkeys. If you sit a bunch of monkeys down at a bunch of typewriters as in the classical thought experiment, you'll notice a lot of obvious, logical patterns in their product: not a lot of spaces or punctuation; letter frequencies tend to correlate pretty heavily with their location on the keyboard; relatively few instances of isolated upper case letters (once upper case starts, it tends to run continuously just about as long as lower case strings), etc. With our gun laws, there's no evidence of logic or reason to be found anywhere.

I disagree.

Massachusetts gun laws, whether statute or case law, clearly manifest an anti-gun animus. Indeed, case law expressly states that the purpose of the laws is to restrict access to guns.

 

[KMaurer]

I disagree.

Massachusetts gun laws, whether statute or case law, clearly manifest an anti-gun animus. Indeed, case law expressly states that the purpose of the laws is to restrict access to guns.

Thank you, Keith. More evidence in support of my contention. While perhaps not quite as quick on the uptake as some (though hardly all) humans, monkeys and apes do modify their behavior in light of the repeated failures of their original approach. to problems. The unbroken chin of failures of Massachusetts laws has lead to no such adaptive behavior. Now perhaps if the expressed purpose of the laws was to make the lives of law abiding citizens miserable, leave them overwhelmingly defenseless at the hands of criminals, and extort as much money as possible from them for this questionable privilege, I might have had to reconsider.

Ken

 

[pdm]

Uncle Teddy? Is that you!?

 

[Scrivener]

With our gun laws, there's no evidence of logic or reason to be found anywhere.

Again, I dispute your assertion.

More evidence in support of my contention

.

No, because your original contention was the ABSENCE of such logic or purpose. I believe your new contention - that apes are smarter than Mass politicians because the gun laws they wrote don't reduce crime - remains as incorrect as the original claim.

Your error begins in your premise: MA gun laws are designed to reduce crime.

Nonsense! As has been noted many times before, the object of gun control is CONTROL. "Public safety" is the ostensible purpose; the true objective is an unarmed populace.

Whether the objective is based upon some Utopian delusion of a crime-free, violence-free Never-never Land or the simple fear of the governed by those in power may be debated. That "public safety" is only the excuse seems less in dispute.

 

[jdubois]

No, because your original contention was the ABSENCE of such logic or purpose. I believe your new contention - that apes are smarter than Mass politicians because the gun laws they wrote don't reduce crime - remains as incorrect as the original claim.

Well, let's not forget MY initial contention that started this thread, which was that the evidence of their stupidity, regardless of their intentions, was that they couldn't even write the laws to say what they meant them to say. I can respect somebody who I don't agree with, even if I don't share their opinion and/or goals, but I can't respect somebody who can't be bothered to proof read something as important as the text of a law.

 

[Scrivener]

Well, there's no argument on THAT point.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

Well, let's not forget MY initial contention that started this thread, which was that the evidence of their stupidity, regardless of their intentions, was that they couldn't even write the laws to say what they meant them to say. I can respect somebody who I don't agree with, even if I don't share their opinion and/or goals, but I can't respect somebody who can't be bothered to proof read something as important as the text of a law.

The guy who founded GUN OWNERS of AMERICA - I can't think of his name right now - was a California State Legislator for many years. He wrote a book - used to be available on the GOA web site, might still be - Titled:

What Makes You Think We Read The Laws?

Regards
John

 

[Scrivener]

Larry Pratt, yes?

 

[KMaurer]

The guy who founded GUN OWNERS of AMERICA - I can't think of his name right now - was a California State Legislator for many years. He wrote a book - used to be available on the GOA web site, might still be - Titled:

What Makes You Think We Read The Laws?

Regards
John

The person to whom you're referring is H.L. "Bill" Richardson, who served for more than 20 years in the California state senate, 10 years on the NRA Board of Directors, and was a founder of both Gun Owners of California and later, Gun Owners of America.

Ken