-
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.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
"Act Locally"?
- Thread starter Coyote33
- Start date
None. Insofar as you are talking about firearms regulation (i.e., things that one must do or not do to avoid a penalty), that is preempted by the Commonwealth, and insofar as you are talking about liability regulation (i.e., things that may be done without incurring civil liability to someone, or that if done will expose one to civil liability), this is precluded to the cities and towns by the Home Rule Amendment (Art. 89, sec. 7).
IMO about the only thing a town/city could do was possibly to write
some ordinance saying the chief should do this and should do that (eg, act
"shall issue" for anyone not statutorily disqualified) but I don't
know how the law would stick, because there is way too much precedent
out there for the courts allowing chiefs to get away with whatever they
want to. Then as RKG says, the state may even preempt that, because
if MA has true state level preemption then that means any laws a town
makes about guns are meaningless, unless the city gets a "home rule" provision like
Boston did to ban "assault weapons". (And even then, such a provision probably
only allows the laws to be MORE restrictive and not less, or at least that's what
I'd guess.... or that the legislature would only ever allow it for a city intending to
make their laws stricter. )
-Mike
some ordinance saying the chief should do this and should do that (eg, act
"shall issue" for anyone not statutorily disqualified) but I don't
know how the law would stick, because there is way too much precedent
out there for the courts allowing chiefs to get away with whatever they
want to. Then as RKG says, the state may even preempt that, because
if MA has true state level preemption then that means any laws a town
makes about guns are meaningless, unless the city gets a "home rule" provision like
Boston did to ban "assault weapons". (And even then, such a provision probably
only allows the laws to be MORE restrictive and not less, or at least that's what
I'd guess.... or that the legislature would only ever allow it for a city intending to
make their laws stricter. )
-Mike
Won't impact folks like Menino! Since when do they abide by any other laws other than their own in Boston?
And now GOAL is proposing the same thing. (Imagine that!)
GOAL Files Bill to Prevent Gun Confiscations During a State of Emergency
We've been discussing it here for a few days now. Did you miss it?
http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=15066&highlight=goal
Twigg
NES Member
None. The second ammandment does not apply to individules in Massachusetts, only for "the common defense".
Also, the Katrina bil was never passed so. IIRC the way current laws are written (in theory) any ,gov offical can declare an "emergency" and order a confiscation.
At least thet's the way things were when we moved out.
If anyone knows differently and has a link to current laws that'd help.
Titan
Banned
How is that?
My understanding is that Heller establishes an individual right, and MacDonald 'incorporates' that to the states.
Massachusetts does NOT recognize the US Constitution or the Authority of the Federal Gov't . . . except when it comes to receiving monies from the US Gov't for projects in MA.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
Does that answer your question?
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
I doubt it. Ordinances and bylaws have very little weight legally anyway, so even if a town passed one, it would be a token gesture.
I also think that gun rights groups should hold off on pushing for new state level legislation until some of the cases make their way through the federal court system. Lately in Mass. the policy has been to compromise or trade off in order to make improvements in certain areas. Making the wrong move to get a bill passed now could self-castrate Mass. gun owners. A lot of this work will be done for them without any compromise. Putting money towards those court fights would be the best way to kill time while waiting for things to change IMO.
Hold fast.
Sort of. Legally, your LTC can be revoked for "suitability" at any time, and they can take any guns/ammo you have, unless you have an FID (which would only cover the ammo and some of the guns, but still wouldn't allow a total confiscation). They can't take an FID unless you're statutorily prohibited, but there's no penalty at the state level if they take it or items you could have lawfully possessed with it anyway. Any LTC or FID denial/revocation/suspension must be in writing per MGL 140-131(f)/ MGL 140-129B(4) to be valid, and they need a warrant to search for your guns even if the revocation is valid (although a warrant shouldn't be too hard to obtain if you have a license and FA-10's filed).
While there is no penalty at the state level for violations of this, under 42 USC 1983 damages can be sought (and have been) against Mass. police officials in federal court who search without a warrant to seize guns for a revoked LTC or who revoke your LTC vindictively for excercising your 1st amendment rights, even if you're statutorily prohibited from having the license in the first place. The Mass. SJC acknowledged that the chiefs screwed the pooch in both of those cases.
Also, the Mass. SJC has ruled that you have a 5th amendment right to not disclose anything about a firearm, even if an FA-10 was filed on it & no further transfers have been documented since then, and a warrant search doesn't produce said firearm. A court also cannot force you to produce the gun(s) or acknowledge anything about them based on an FA-10, or hold you in contempt for keeping your mouth shut re: their location or existence.
What this means is that as things stand today in Massachusetts, you must be notified of your license revocation in writing, you don't have to let LE inside to search for or take your guns without a warrant, if they can't find the guns with a warrant you don't have to explain anything about them or help locate them, and FA-10's can't be used to make you do anything. If they choose to violate your rights (which thanks to Heller & McDonald are your individual rights), you can sue their pants off at the federal level. The legality of an "emergency confiscation" hasn't been tested in the Mass. courts, but I don't think it would rise to the level of exigent circumstances required in order to legally take place without a warrant.
You'll still be out the guns in the short term if they bully their way over you, but legally you do have some clear cut protections. I still wouldn't want to move back there though.
Last edited:
J
Jose
Usually, things work in reverse in free America.
State goverments pass laws prohibiting municipalities from enacting their own gun control measures.
Ohio used to be a patchwork of local gun control ordinances, registration and licensing schemes, and big city AWBs until 2007 when state law declared them all null and void. The state's AG has won TWICE at the state supreme court level defending the pre-emption general law against challenges by both municipalities small (Clyde) and large (Cleveland).
State goverments pass laws prohibiting municipalities from enacting their own gun control measures.
Ohio used to be a patchwork of local gun control ordinances, registration and licensing schemes, and big city AWBs until 2007 when state law declared them all null and void. The state's AG has won TWICE at the state supreme court level defending the pre-emption general law against challenges by both municipalities small (Clyde) and large (Cleveland).
