Changing MA gun laws, thinking out of the box, what would it take to do this

[boatman]

Didn't want to post this in MA section as hopefully others might have some great ideas.

I came to this thought when reading another thread on CT gun law, and was struck by how similar MA and CT are in political composition, yet how far apart we are in gun law. Both states are pretty liberal in general, both have large populations that are suburbs of major metropolis, and also have suburb and rural populations.

Question is, why do we have our laws vs. CT, which seems is pretty much an at issue state?

But more importantly, what would it take to change our laws? For instance, would $10M change things? When I was first told that to get a LTC I needed to speak to my town PD, I thought the person telling me that was kidding me! And I was not the staunchest 2A person at the time, just your average guy who had never thought about getting a gun. Middle of the road, but couldn't believe there were restrictions like that. I would bet most of the non gun owning citizens have no clue what MA gun laws are (especially vs. what CT, NH, VT border states are). Can we get something on the ballot as a referendum? Can we get a governor running on a platform that has this issue? Etc, etc.

I am writing this as a serious topic, especially in light of what Jesse is doing. Not looking for people to BS or bash or complain and moan, here is something that could become a grassroots effort. Maybe it's not possible, but I always hate to think that way.

 

[MisterHappy]

If it gets on the ballot, it will lose.

Gun owners are 10% or so of the population. Why would the rest vote for relaxed restrictions? Everyone knows that the laws are all that protect them from ankle-deep blood in the streets.

While your idealism is commendable, Sissyphus would have it easier.

 

[boatman]

If it gets on the ballot, it will lose.

Gun owners are 10% or so of the population. Why would the rest vote for relaxed restrictions? Everyone knows that the laws are all that protect them from ankle-deep blood in the streets.

While your idealism is commendable, Sissyphus would have it easier.

OK. How did CT do it. I would believe they have the same 10% ownership number. And btw, I don't the other 90% are anti. They just might not care so much and will accept it either way. They didn't vote for the current law as the main issue, it just came to them.

I started this thread not to hear how it can't be done, I was hoping for some brainstorming. I think Jesse has taken an 'out of the box' approach. Let's figure out a lever for his efforts and multiply it!

 

[nightpoison]

Boatman I agree that there are things we should do to help the pro 2A community in MA. I also agree that it's going to take more than just a ballet.

I think the biggest fight we have is, besides the political, is the general public's education on myths vs facts regarding firearms and firearm ownership.

As I'm a green member, a goal member, and donate when I can I also believe that is not the only thing we can do. As it's clear that you, Boatman, want to not only lend your support monetarily, but would like to back it with action of your own.

Just kicking some ideas, but how about:

getting involved with your range and/or helping to getting more ranges to do more public events to help educate the general public. MRA does a couple every year. One for women, one for everyone. Well it would be good to see more ranges do this. And here is where our donations come into play. Maybe some support from goal & com2a with media awareness advertising, etc.

I think we really need to focus on educating the sheep. Some will continue to follow the pack, I know I get a kick when one of my nervous anti friends go to the range for the first time , then the first thing they ask when we leave is "what do I need to do to get my license"

I think donations for the political and legal battle field is one thing, but we wont get there as fast as we want with out converting some sheeple.

Sent from my T-Mobile Galaxy S III

 

[mikem317]

Both states are up there for moonbattery when it comes to gun laws.

Aren't 7.62x39 rifles banned in CT? At least in MA you can get an AK-47.

 

[jcr]

We have Chapter 180 of the Session Laws of 1998 because State Sen. Cheryl Jacques pushed it (when most didn't care that much) and she had media support because of Rosenthal's Stop Gun Violence group which was co-founded with one of the now deceased Kennedy's.

It took them 5+ years of pushing -- because Beacon Hill leadership didn't care that much. Finally they just relented -- probably because they made some deal and got support for something else in trade.

Not that things were good before 1998 -- but each ratcheting of the the laws are because of some anti-freedom jerk pushes at the time. It all started here in 1913 when you had to be "suitable" to _carry_ a gun.

--jcr

 

[MisterHappy]

OK. How did CT do it. I would believe they have the same 10% ownership number. And btw, I don't the other 90% are anti. They just might not care so much and will accept it either way. They didn't vote for the current law as the main issue, it just came to them.

I started this thread not to hear how it can't be done, I was hoping for some brainstorming. I think Jesse has taken an 'out of the box' approach. Let's figure out a lever for his efforts and multiply it!

I understand the intent of your thread - just as all the other threads with a similar intent were understood.

You're not the first to pose the question.

Some suggestions: A billboard campain; open-carry marches; public outreach; getting moew pols that are sympathetic to our casue in office; "GOAL should do more"; there are others.....

Jesse Cohen is out of the box in that he's being proactive, as opposed to reactive, but he's still working within his framework - the justice system.

We, as gun owners, are outnumbered; we don't have the political muscle to effect change; we're an oppressed minority, without glamorous celebreties to champion our casue; we're behind the political eight-ball.

If you're looking for some grass-roots suggestions, here you go: Get your club to host scout troops for a day of rifle shooting, then have the local paper cover it, so you get good press; If there is a Town Concert where the local busineese and pols set up tents, have your club there. Let the locals know that your club is a fun place; Start a Basic Pistol course, and incvite a Pol or reporter to each one, free. When there's an Op-Ed or Letter to the Editor that is "wrong" write one that's right; Are you "Out of the Gun Safe" at work? Invite co-workers shooting.

Pounding our spoons on our high chairs and crying that we're oppressed will not help; we need to get more people on our side. It will be done one person at a time.

Oh....and these were not off-the-top of my head ideas. I've done most of them.

 

[drgrant]

Question is, why do we have our laws vs. CT, which seems is pretty much an at issue state?

Because even though CT is communist MA is that much more communist than CT is.

-Mike

 

[ntomsw]

You know what will fix this state? Moving out of it to greener pastures. That's it. Either that, or burning it to the ground.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

If it gets on the ballot, it will lose.

More to the point, it's not something that should be on a ballot to begin with.

If you're of the opinion that the Second Amendment extends outside the home, would you be willing, or is it even appropriate, to subject the exercise of that right to public plebiscite?

Looking back 50-60 years when Jim Crow was still prevalent in the South. Would that be the sort of thing that should be subject to a popularity contest? Would segregation be okay as long as a majority of voters were for it?

BTW: We're not really that far removed from 1976 when there was a ballot questions that, if passed, would have outlawed the possession of handguns in Massachusetts.

 

[CBL]

You know what will fix this state? Moving out of it to greener pastures. That's it. Either that, or burning it to the ground.

Or if the confines of Suffolk county becomes its own state and the rest of Massachusetts gets absorbed by NH/VT.

 

[marc the marksman]

I am by no means a legal expert, but from what I understand, we have some of the most restrictive laws on gun possession in the country, yet we seem to be lax in the area of punishing criminal gun offenses. I actually recently read about a case that was thrown out against a defendant who had two prior illegal gun possession charges because the evidence was determined to be "inadmissible". Apparently the cops were determined to have searched the guy's car illegally, even though he displayed nervous behavior and was looking for an escape route to run from the cops. THIS is a problem...we have a lot of violent criminals out on bail with gun charges or assault with gun charges, so by the time their case actually gets to trial, they've intimidated any witnesses that would have come forward, or have already committed other crimes while out on bail.

I have no idea how to deal with this loophole legally, but it's definitely a problem.

We also need to work on upping our convictions for murder cases. There's a whole generation of teens out here that are witnessing, in this Internet Age of ours, people they might know, who have gotten off the hook on charges that they should've been convicted for. A couple of recents that come to mind are the guy from the Mattapan Massacre that was acquitted, as well as the kid that shot another kid IN BROAD DAYLIGHT on an MBTA bus, also acquitted. When you have kids growing up thinking they can "get away with murder", LITERALLY, it's never a good thing...

 

[Chris.Cal]

Most people that I know that seem to vote democrat are not anti-2a. It is simply just not important to them. Hell, most are oblivious to their constitutional rights. Sometimes I wonder if they vote the way they do because of monkey see monkey do syndrome. Whether it be how their parents vote, friends, or co-workers. I'll state the obvious and say there are a large amount of people that just need to be educated.

 

[xtry51]

In CT we've never had suitability. That's the only real difference. Local government cannot interfere with your rights unless you're a convicted felon.

Apart from that we've traded normal capacity mags for no AKs, which IMO is a good trade

Seriously though, we're on a plan to move to NH within 5 years. I'm getting the hell out of here as soon as I can.

 

[boatman]

Most people that I know that seem to vote democrat are not anti-2a. It is simply just not important to them. Hell, most are oblivious to their constitutional rights. Sometimes I wonder if they vote the way they do because of monkey see monkey do syndrome. Whether it be how their parents vote, friends, or co-workers. I'll state the obvious and say there are a large amount of people that just need to be educated.

Exactly. when I speak to people, many of them are single issue deciders, just that it's not 2a. If they are liberal, maybe it is that they are pro choice. When asked about 2a, their response is, 'as long as he is pro choice, I really don't care about 2a'. In fact, when pressed, I find most people are pretty 2a, they say, 'well, it's in the consitution', though I do find most will agree to be against large clips'.

So to me, the best way to move this forward is to support legislators who are pro2a. If the majority of the people either don't care, or lean towards a pro, why couldn't a pro 2a legislator carry the ball foward?

 

[drgrant]

In CT we've never had suitability. That's the only real difference. Local government cannot interfere with your rights unless you're a convicted felon.

Apart from that we've traded normal capacity mags for no AKs, which IMO is a good trade

Seriously though, we're on a plan to move to NH within 5 years. I'm getting the hell out of here as soon as I can.

You guys also get the SFLU, what we have in MA is basically a puddle of shit in comparison. At least the SFLU gives guidance and tends to err in the side of something resembling due process.

 

[GunGrey]

two ideas

Leave and I wont say the second one because i'm not stupid.

 

[MichaelJR]

The key is education. As any minority group we should reach out to the other minority groups in the state.

The LGBT and racial minorities are just as worthy of having means to defend themselves. They have families and loved ones too. In fact I've convinced more lesbians and gays about firearms in a positive light simply by the fact that they face real danger every day (as does anyone but especially if they are open). This is no different than blacks in the 50's/60's (insert awesome video by JPFO here) and how they moved forward. We have surging Asian and eastern European populations too. Some have come out of heavy socialist governments. What's wrong with them experiencing how it is to be a sovereign American?

I know this isn't popular with the older generation of firearm sporting "enthusiast" *cough-white-middle-class-males-cough* but everyone needs to grow up and get with the times. These people are here and they are not going anywhere. We might as well take it as an opportunity to raise our numbers. We may even learn something as a community...

It's to all of our benefit to expose as many people to freedom and what it takes to safeguard it.

+1000.

 

[swampy]

If you want to make serious inroads you need to get other oppressed groups to join us and we join them and fight all our issues as one big block. Get the seat belt law repealed again. Get the motorcycle helmet laws repealed. Get the trapping ban overturned. Find another dozen or more things that have too small a following to join together in one large group to make an all encompassing take back of freedoms that have been taken away by the government that supposedly works for us. Everyone needs to hold tight to each other's desires though. When someone starts throwing someone else's cause under the bus for their own gain spoils the whole thing. You'd have to sell the package as a "Taking back what is ours" movement. One voice, many causes. Package it as the Massachusetts Revolution. It'll need money, people, and creative marketing.

 

[MilitaryPolice]

The key is education. As any minority group we should reach out to the other minority groups in the state.

The LGBT and racial minorities are just as worthy of having means to defend themselves. They have families and loved ones too. In fact I've convinced more lesbians and gays about firearms in a positive light simply by the fact that they face real danger every day (as does anyone but especially if they are open). This is no different than blacks in the 50's/60's (insert awesome video by JPFO here) and how they moved forward. We have surging Asian and eastern European populations too. Some have come out of heavy socialist governments. What's wrong with them experiencing how it is to be a sovereign American?

I know this isn't popular with the older generation of firearm sporting "enthusiast" *cough-white-middle-class-males-cough* but everyone needs to grow up and get with the times. These people are here and they are not going anywhere. We might as well take it as an opportunity to raise our numbers. We may even learn something as a community...

It's to all of our benefit to expose as many people to freedom and what it takes to safeguard it.

+1,000,000

 

[buketduder]

Just for the record..you can have AK's...just not chambered in 7.62 x 39..sucks..but I like my AK-74..

If you want some reading..here is how it went down in 1993..tie vote..

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/28/nyregion/weapons-ban-is-approved-by-connecticut-senate.html

 

[Bob Palermo]

For instance, would $10M change things? .

$10m would get you a nice sized UHaul and a very nice sized house in Texas/Vermont/etc.

And then plenty left over to buy whatever you wanted.

Then again, $10m may get you anything you want in MA if you know where to look.