Bill H.2095 An Act to close the large capacity magazine loophole

Incompetence. Sort of like the logic that an AR requires a trigger lock or secure locking device at home, but must be a locked case for transport.

OK. I certainly hope you are right. I will not be at all surprised if you are not, though.

I'm recalling the subtle boiling-the-frog assertions which were being made the year before Maura Healey sprung her novel interpretation of the MA "Assault Weapons Ban" on us. In the year leading up to it, the MA govt employees were telling all new FFLs (while helping them get set up) that it was not legal to transfer AR's, even pre-ban AR's from out of state. I know this, because a friend was getting his licensing requirements completed, and it set off alarm bells inside my head (Why would they be asserting that?) I even came here and made a post about it, wondering why a government employee would be asserting (and re-asserting, after being questioned on it) something so obviously false. It was about creating an undercurrent of confusion--and then "clarifying" that confusion, and that is exactly what they did.
 
New Jersey and Connecticut tried, no one really complied did they? Or at least so few it was ridiculous.

By "not complying" you mean they quietly decided to become criminals, right?

Do you consider that a win?

All it did was prevented them from fighting--the state's victory is hardening like cement all around them.

I would describe a "win" as remaining law-abiding citizens with their Constitutional Rights acknowledged and in place.
 
How did this shit get through the public safety committee without us noticing? In previous years we've gone to hearings and these things usually die in the committee. We're not paying enough attention?

This is the same crap that Linsky pulls every year but it's a bit worrying to see a favorable committee report.
Don't have time to look it up right now, but hasn't the public safety committee pretty much been packed with inner city leftists in recent years? Not too many sane people left if memory serves me right. [thinking]
 
This pile of manure, known as Bill H.2095, is currently in the Ways and Means Committee. My rep happens to be a member of that committee, so I'm writing her today with my objections to the bill.

Here is a list of members in the committee:


If your rep is a member of this committee, I would encourage you to write a physical letter and send it by mail. Sending by email does not have same effect as mailing an old fashioned letter with a signature on it.

PM me if you are interested in the text I wrote, in case you want to copy and re-use some of the points in my letter.
 
Last edited:
This pile of manure, known as Bill H.2095, is currently in the Ways and Means Committee. My rep happens to be a member of that committee, so I'm writing her today with my objections to the bill.

Here is a list of members in the committee:


If your rep is a member of this committee, I would encourage you to write a physical letter and send it by mail. Sending by email does not have same effect as mailing an old fashioned letter with a signature on it.
Good on you for doing that. I hope that others are doing the same...
 
This pile of manure, known as Bill H.2095, is currently in the Ways and Means Committee. My rep happens to be a member of that committee, so I'm writing her today with my objections to the bill.

If your rep is a member of this committee, I would encourage you to write a physical letter and send it by mail. Sending by email does not have same effect as mailing an old fashioned letter with a signature on it.

Good on you.

One note it is a committee so no need for their representative to be on it for folks to feel free to write any or all of its members and especially the chairman.

🐯
 
Anyone have a good template I can use to write my rep. Hate to say it. Between school and work I simply do not have the time to sit and write the letter. Any free time more than 15 min I need to be studying.
 
By "not complying" you mean they quietly decided to become criminals, right?

Do you consider that a win?

All it did was prevented them from fighting--the state's victory is hardening like cement all around them.

I would describe a "win" as remaining law-abiding citizens with their Constitutional Rights acknowledged and in place.
No just stating what happened. Yes they became criminals but no one is going to jail....yet.
 
No just stating what happened. Yes they became criminals but no one is going to jail....yet.

That is a tactical decision on the part of the power elite.

They have the legal mechanism in place to arrest, convict, and incarcerate pretty much every gun-owner in their state--all they have to do is want to.

And gun owners will live in fear of being "noticed" by the state, even in the act of self-defense--and that fear will act as hindrance to every other right that they have.

They stripped citizens of their rights, and then they made them afraid to even complain about it.

That is true authoritarian power.

Do you feel "safe" yet?
 
It would seem the principle of unintended consequences would come into play here. If I own pre-ban standard capacity mags and I have no plans to "register" my mags if this law passes, why wouldn't I head out to a free state and load up on pmags? When/if this lawe passes, doesn't the original mag ban that's part of the AWB cease to really matter?
 
Even if that's possible it doesn't change the ballot box problem. Lets say I hit Powerball tomorrow and don't have to work, myself and a couple dozen pro 2a workers, over the next year might be able to hit the couch cushions and get 25,000 that give a shit. That's still not nearly enough to threaten pols over their position. It's a numbers game and the guns per capita / concerned gun owners/ district size ratios in MA don't work in our favor- and the antis already know this.

Basically what is underpinning your position is the acceptance of Majoritarianism.

Majoritarianism is incompatible with the notion of inalienable rights.

The real problem in MA is cowardice and apathy.

OK then. I will not stand up to defend those who will not defend themselves. I'd say that if you cannot get 10,000 people to stand up for their rights, then I guess they DESERVE to lose those rights because they are not worthy of them.

I was willing to risk getting shot in the streets in Virginia, because Virginians were worth that risk.

Massachusetts? f*** you all--I'll stand peacefully aside and watch it burn.
 
It would seem the principle of unintended consequences would come into play here. If I own pre-ban standard capacity mags and I have no plans to "register" my mags if this law passes, why wouldn't I head out to a free state and load up on pmags? When/if this lawe passes, doesn't the original mag ban that's part of the AWB cease to really matter?

Recklessly making criminals out of honest men is the hallmark of bad government--but in this case I suspect that is not a bug, it is a feature.
 
It would seem the principle of unintended consequences would come into play here. If I own pre-ban standard capacity mags and I have no plans to "register" my mags if this law passes, why wouldn't I head out to a free state and load up on pmags? When/if this lawe passes, doesn't the original mag ban that's part of the AWB cease to really matter?
Good point. Other than maybe making one's non-compliance easier to spot, the difference between pre and post ban becomes essentially moot: Neither can ever be loaded with more than 10 rounds, and neither can be used for anything other than at-home defense or target shooting (ex. EDC, self-protection beyond one's residence, hunting). The only distinction is one could legally hold a mostly unloaded, registered, pre-ban standard capacity magazine in their hand (or gun) in a few places. Anything and everywhere else would be verboten. This would become essentially ex post facto constructive dispossession of previously legal items. It shouldn't hold up in a court of law, but this is MA ...
 
There are easily that many, but that's not enough to forment political change. We're outgunned at the ballot box in most districts- and the handful of pro gun dems live in districts that don't make the rules. They're all outside of the cup. If we could get 100,000 pro 2a votes inside the cup it would be something, but most gun owners in this state don't care.... I think 2/3rds of them are "moonbat lite" types, etc. It's at the point where the cup moonbat pols won't even listen to reason because they know numerically they don't need our votes...

My comment was in terms blatant non compliance. there is easily that many that talk the talk on the internet. When it’s actually time to act I’m not so sure. The change doesn’t need to be made at the polls it needs to be made in everyday life. Thousands of people flipping the bird to the politicians and telling them to do something about it. Kind of like Virginia recently but even that only put a small dent in the politicians plans.
 
Last edited:
Are there any MA attorneys who are interested in 2A political activism, or are they only in it for the paycheck?

If there were say 75 people who were willing to face arrest for staging a political protest, could they count on someone to represent them?

Not some assclown in a bad suit--someone competent--or better yet, someone with a level of comittment and legal genius?

Could they count on the MA 2A community to stand ready to help them post bail and fund their legal expenses (I.e. a Go Fund Me, etc)?

Could those 75 count on other 2A supporters ,numbering in the thousands--to be there, present, carrying concealed--or even just bother showing up in the first place?

Or at the end of the day, are gun owners in MA REALLY just dirt-shooter hobbyists?
 
Are there any MA attorneys who are interested in 2A political activism, or are they only in it for the paycheck?

If there were say 75 people who were willing to face arrest for staging a political protest, could they count on someone to represent them?

Not some assclown in a bad suit--someone competent--or better yet, someone with a level of comittment and legal genius?

Could they count on the MA 2A community to stand ready to help them post bail and fund their legal expenses (I.e. a Go Fund Me, etc)?

Could those 75 count on other 2A supporters ,numbering in the thousands--to be there, present, carrying concealed--or even just bother showing up in the first place?

Or at the end of the day, are gun owners in MA REALLY just dirt-shooter hobbyists?
Dirt shooter hobbyists! Let me ask you. Have you locked and loaded in defense of anything?
 
Are there any MA attorneys who are interested in 2A political activism, or are they only in it for the paycheck?

If there were say 75 people who were willing to face arrest for staging a political protest, could they count on someone to represent them?

Not some assclown in a bad suit--someone competent--or better yet, someone with a level of comittment and legal genius?

Could they count on the MA 2A community to stand ready to help them post bail and fund their legal expenses (I.e. a Go Fund Me, etc)?

Could those 75 count on other 2A supporters ,numbering in the thousands--to be there, present, carrying concealed--or even just bother showing up in the first place?

Or at the end of the day, are gun owners in MA REALLY just dirt-shooter hobbyists?
Keep in mind that you are asking 75 people to become instantly unsuitable, even if all charges are eventually dropped. Suitability is the thumb that holds everyone in place.

Hmmm is there a case that suitability is unconstitutional because it has a chilling affect on 1a?
 
I know of one coming up, but the problem with the suitability cases is we as gun owners apply the same standards.
I would disagree, I don't think anyone on NES would deny me an LTC or FID because of a single arrest 20 years ago, where the charges were dismissed. Would you? They only use suitability when there is no statutory reason to deny, and given how strick MA is, it has to be a pretty minor thing. But the threat is enough to get most to comply with unlawful add one to the requirements for an LTC. It's just easier to comply.
 
With this corona madness going on, this would be a perfect time for our legislature to sneak some awful and draconian gun laws through in the middle of the night and claim it was for "emergency purposes". No hearings, no feedback, nothing, just wake up to a new law the next morning.
 
With this corona madness going on, this would be a perfect time for our legislature to sneak some awful and draconian gun laws through in the middle of the night and claim it was for "emergency purposes". No hearings, no feedback, nothing, just wake up to a new law the next morning.
The government did that during Katrina.

If the government did that here, nobody would comply.

Going door to door would not end well for anyone.

The whole point of 2a is to protect ourselves during this sort of disaster.
 
With this corona madness going on, this would be a perfect time for our legislature to sneak some awful and draconian gun laws through in the middle of the night and claim it was for "emergency purposes". No hearings, no feedback, nothing, just wake up to a new law the next morning.
I just remembered about this bill and had the same thought you had. I think the session ends around the end of July. Wondering if its time to start contacting ways & means members?
 
Back
Top Bottom