2023 MA Gun Ban: House has engrossed H.4139, waiting on Senate

[GOAL]

Here we go, folks. This is hot off the press, and we're just digging in now. At 123 pages it looks like a slightly pared down version of the same garbage from before.

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/HD4607

More to come.

 

[SIGNES]

Oh look:

1. This section shall not apply to transfer or possession by: (i) qualified law enforcement
2. 1652 officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers as defined in the Law Enforcement
3. 1653 Officers Safety Act of 2004,18 U.S.C. sections 926B and 926C, respectively, as amended; (ii) a
4. 1654 federal, state or local law enforcement agency; or (iii) federally licensed manufacturers solely for
5. 1655 sale or transfer in another state or for export.

Looks like the evangelism to oppose this with the local PD's and Chiefs associations just got a lot harder. Who would have seen that coming?

 

[pastera]

Time to spend 8-16 hours studying another abortion of rights and logic.

 

[Mesatchornug]

Whee.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Shocked. We're all SHOCKED I tell you.

What pieces of absolute crap these folks are.

What I love, instead of just rewriting the entire thing, they do these stupid "edits" - making it harder to track the bullspit.

 

[JDL]

LE will now be on board to sell us down the river.

 

[Rockrivr1]

Well, we knew it was just a matter to time before it came out. Time to keep up the good fight. We had some momentum with the other bill, so just need to keep it up with this bill.

 

[Grendizer138]

Oh look:

1. This section shall not apply to transfer or possession by: (i) qualified law enforcement
2. 1652 officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers as defined in the Law Enforcement
3. 1653 Officers Safety Act of 2004,18 U.S.C. sections 926B and 926C, respectively, as amended; (ii) a
4. 1654 federal, state or local law enforcement agency; or (iii) federally licensed manufacturers solely for
5. 1655 sale or transfer in another state or for export.

Looks like the evangelism to oppose this with the local PD's and Chiefs associations just got a lot harder. Who would have seen that coming?

Literally everyone saw it coming; but the PD opposition was required to get here. Now we find out where they really stand.

If/when this passes, we’ll also find out if FFLs will be willing to sell “LEO only” stuff, and if NES will still buy from those FFLs….

 

[BREWINZ]

Blatantly unconstitutional bills should carry prison time. If I stated how I truly feel about this man, I'd get a visit from the FBI.

 

[FisherTech]

Literally everyone saw it coming; but the PD opposition was required to get here. Now we find out where they really stand.

If/when this passes, we’ll also find out if FFLs will be willing to sell “LEO only” stuff, and if NES will still buy from those FFLs….

That and every club needs to tell the PD's to go find someplace else to qualify and train. Plus no more free keys. I knew of at least one club in the Greater Lowel Area that did that.

 

[Dcdr]

The problem is politicians face no consequences whatsoever for pushing blatantly unconstitutional legislation. They should be afraid of the public throwing bricks at them if they violate their oath of office. They should wonder if their police detail will turn on them for being tyrannical.
A man can dream

 

[SIGNES]

Further search and scan indicates (I've not been able to read line by line) that the barrel serialization, live fire tests and at least the worst of the shipping limitations are also gone. This is still a pile of stink but now it might be in a place where G.O.A.L. and we can at least dull the sharp edges to something we can live with while waiting for the courts to more fully un%^&* it.

EDIT: To be VERY clear, a) I haven't looked at every word. b) It's still a #$%^&show. c) It shouldn't pass (but likely will). d) I hate every word of it. e) My point about 'living with after some negotiation' is a position of realism in our current climate not a "no big deal, what's so bad?" position.

Oh, and one more edit: The 'only on private property with explicit permission' (still in the bill) is ripe for court challenge, unenforceable and completely undermines the whole notion of self defense carry.

And one more edit thanks to @ddeck22. Live fire training is still in there at line 1324.

No more edits. New info coming to light for me will be new posts.

 

[bigbravehog]

The problem is politicians face no consequences whatsoever for pushing blatantly unconstitutional legislation. They should be afraid of the public throwing bricks at them if they violate their oath of office. They should wonder if their police detail will turn on them for being tyrannical.
A man can dream

with a 68-70% voting block, they don't care about consequences.

 

[pupchow]

I'm going to need some 4607 stickers for my signs

 

[rcwhat]

Further search and scan indicates (I've not been able to read line by line) that the barrel serialization, live fire tests and at least the worst of the shipping limitations are also gone. This is still a pile of stink but now it might be in a place where G.O.A.L. and we can at least dull the sharp edges to something we can live with while waiting for the courts to more fully un%^&* it.

f*** you and this “we” shit. NO more infringements

 

[ddeck22]

Further search and scan indicates (I've not been able to read line by line) that the barrel serialization, live fire tests and at least the worst of the shipping limitations are also gone. This is still a pile of stink but now it might be in a place where G.O.A.L. and we can at least dull the sharp edges to something we can live with while waiting for the courts to more fully un%^&* it.

EDIT: To be VERY clear, a) I haven't looked at every word. b) It's still a #$%^&show. c) It shouldn't pass (but likely will). d) I hate every word of it. e) My point about 'living with after some negotiation' is a position of realism in our current climate not a "no big deal, what's so bad?" position.

Oh, and one more edit: The 'only on private property with explicit permission' (still in the bill) is ripe for court challenge, unenforceable and completely undermines the whole notion of self defense carry.

Live fire training still in there...line 1324.

 

[AJK129]

Further search and scan indicates (I've not been able to read line by line) that the barrel serialization, live fire tests and at least the worst of the shipping limitations are also gone. This is still a pile of stink but now it might be in a place where G.O.A.L. and we can at least dull the sharp edges to something we can live with while waiting for the courts to more fully un%^&* it.

EDIT: To be VERY clear, a) I haven't looked at every word. b) It's still a #$%^&show. c) It shouldn't pass (but likely will). d) I hate every word of it. e) My point about 'living with after some negotiation' is a position of realism in our current climate not a "no big deal, what's so bad?" position.

Oh, and one more edit: The 'only on private property with explicit permission' (still in the bill) is ripe for court challenge, unenforceable and completely undermines the whole notion of self defense carry.

Stop with trying to compromise our rights away

 

[xero2099]

Leo's got what they wanted lets see them come out an oppose this

 

[SIGNES]

One other note... the changes from the original 4420 are things G.O.A.L. and everyone who called, wrote, showed up, yard signed and generally 'activisted' and we owe them thanks, credit and future support.

 

[rogersmithiii]

The smell of tofu farts is even more intense.

 

[SIGNES]

SIGNES doesnt care what the magachuds think. Youre a racist and a fascist and as a member of NES for over 6 months he is qualified to speak for all of us.

I promise, I would never speak for you.

 

[rogersmithiii]

Is there an ammo background check or ban on Inet ammo purchases?

 

[Drix]

Oh look:

1. This section shall not apply to transfer or possession by: (i) qualified law enforcement
2. 1652 officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers as defined in the Law Enforcement
3. 1653 Officers Safety Act of 2004,18 U.S.C. sections 926B and 926C, respectively, as amended; (ii) a
4. 1654 federal, state or local law enforcement agency; or (iii) federally licensed manufacturers solely for
5. 1655 sale or transfer in another state or for export.

Looks like the evangelism to oppose this with the local PD's and Chiefs associations just got a lot harder. Who would have seen that coming?

There's got to be some sort of constitutional protection against setting up a special class of citizen. If you're not on duty your just a slob like the rest of us.

 

[rogersmithiii]

You know they are evil when they get to keep their guns while taking yours.

 

[kro77]

I used to think compromise was reasonable, but the fact it is a dishonest deal I think it all really needs to go. Any chance this will get overturned by other states having their laws challenged. I ran across this video on Chinese knife control being rolled out. Change the world Knife to Gun and it is basically what this and other liberal state policies are.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qjjs21Ysv8

 

[SpeedwayMike]

You know they are evil when they get to keep their guns while taking yours.

Brown shirts

 

[bigbravehog]

There's got to be some sort of constitutional protection against setting up a special class of citizen. If you're not on duty your just a slob like the rest of us.

LEOs have the unions, which are sugar daddies for Democrats

 

[SIGNES]

Stop with trying to compromise our rights away

I'm not getting back into this beyond the following. Unlike a closed sale contract for a house, a bill that passes after you fought back the worst of it doesn't stand forever. It gets worse or better based on courts and new legislation. You can either kick your toys out of the pram and do nothing, or you can try to blunt the pain in the meantime.

Our rights are being threatened. They will be reduced in MA. It's fact, and we need only look to the whole history of Michael Day to see that. It's fact. It's fact that may be fixed by the courts. It's fact that may be fixed by getting somebody else in his office by election, but, for now, it's fact that he won't stop until he passes something. Tantrum all you like but tantrums don't create affirmative acknowledgment of rights. This is especially true when there is no effort to win public support and empathy for your position. Legislation and courts do. So, while we wait for courts and elections, you negotiate.

 

[Picton]

Leo's got what they wanted lets see them come out an oppose this

This is the next phone call/letter writing/email front. Any CoP who came out against this last time needs a phone call this time to remind him that the rhetoric he spewed back then is still just as valid.

 

[freddieMA]

The problem is politicians face no consequences whatsoever for pushing blatantly unconstitutional legislation. They should be afraid of the public throwing bricks at them if they violate their oath of office. They should wonder if their police detail will turn on them for being tyrannical.
A man can dream

if ever there was a time for scotus to revisit qualified immunity ...