Deval's said plans and what they mean for us?

SKS Ray

SKS Ray

Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
16,728
Likes
1,630
Location
South Eastern, MA
Feedback: 56 / 0 / 0
These are 2 points on Deval's web site when refering to gun issues:

<< LIMIT STRAW PURCHASERS We must limit gun purchases in Massachusetts to
one firearm per month. Currently, criminals can too easily buy large quantities
of weapons and resell them on our streets.
• CLOSE THE LOOP HOLES IN GUN SALES We must work to ensure that private
sellerssuch as those at gun shows are subjected to the same reviews and checks
as licensed dealers.. More specifically, background checks should be required at
gun shows and by private dealers alike. >>

Now, not thinking worst case scenario like banning ammo, pre ban assault rifles, etc. but just these 2 statements, what does this mean for us? Say for example C&R holders... will they be exempt and be able to purchase say 2 or more rifles from online vendors in one month or does the federal licensing overule much in the same way C&R holders can get handguns not on the AGs list?
Gun sales... His plan sounds pretty much to take away personal transactions between licensed gun owners. It sucks but the way I understand it, its not a huge deal since lots of us go through FFLs anyway after using up 4 transactions. The gun show background check thing makes no sense because thats already in place. [rolleyes] Unless hes talking about private sales at gun shows, every rifle or handgun I've ever bought at a show with the exception of C&R guns all got the background check via the phone call.
My prediction is that its gonna be pretty confusing for a long time. When he does start stirring the shit, we better make some room in the gun laws section because theres gonna be lots of questions and missunderstanding of any new laws that may be put into place.
But who knows... maybe Ted Kennedy will take him out for a ride.[devil2]
 
Is it time to declare a state of emergency and order a group shipment of 50BMG receivers? (obviously throught a local FFL)
 
And end to private transfers means your "off list" guns are yours for life and otherwise will be surrendered to the state and destroyed.
Gotcha [sad2]
 
jhrosier said:
And end to private transfers means your "off list" guns are yours for life and otherwise will be surrendered to the state and destroyed.
Gotcha [sad2]
Click to expand...

Very true, with one other alternative . . . selling to FFL outside MA.

In other states it is common for mere citizens to rent tables and sell their guns . . . even though this can get a bit squirrelly with BATFE (definition of dealer issues). In MA it is virtually unheard of for someone at a gun show to rent a table unless they possess an FFL. This is a red herring here, but it's "buzz words" picked up from activities in free states that the politicians have grabbed hold of and it makes good sound-bites.
 
There's also a deeper meaning to Patricks (and the MA legislature), gun control measures.

We have turds like Mumbles and others blaming states with less restrictive gun laws for the rise in violent crime in MA... they'd like those other states to enact MA style gun control laws.

With Patricks plan in place, the MA gun-grabbers can comfortably say to those other states "look, we're doing our part, now why don't you join in"? Put another way, they can't very well go before the US Congress and/or other states and demand laws that would limit firearms sales or private sales unless MA has identical laws already in place.
 
What is the deal with that if his super restrictive laws become enacted that GOD FORBID someone is injured or killed by an unlicensed thug....but if it did happen could you sue the Govenor and the State for taking away you rright to defend youself and as such suffered injury or loss of a faimily member as a result of the criminal act? Or are they exepted from the stupis BS they push on us as laws?
 
daceman63 said:
What is the deal with that if his super restrictive laws become enacted that GOD FORBID someone is injured or killed by an unlicensed thug....but if it did happen could you sue the Govenor and the State for taking away you rright to defend youself and as such suffered injury or loss of a faimily member as a result of the criminal act? Or are they exepted from the stupis BS they push on us as laws?
Click to expand...

You should be honored to be a victim. You've done your part to create more evidence against the evil doer who the police may now be able to find and catch, prosecute, put in prison and release on probation in 5 years. Make sure you are a good victim and get some of his/her dna on your clothes/body and do your best to bleed on theirs.
 
So what does Patrick's win actually mean? I didn't follow the Mass. gubernatorial race... not being from Mass. and all.
 
number9 said:
So what does Patrick's win actually mean? I didn't follow the Mass. gubernatorial race... not being from Mass. and all.
Click to expand...

More restrictive gun laws to make legal gun ownership virtually impossible.

Easier access to guns for illegals and criminals

Higher taxes - so we can pay for the influx of illegals because of policies listed below..

Allow illegal imigrants to get valid Mass Driver's Licenses

In State College tuition for illegals - reason higher taxes

Higher crime rate because of illegals

Illegals flocking to mass and taxing our welfare system. - reason for higher taxes

State Welfare System to hand out illegal firearms to illegals to assist in increasing the crime rate to further exploit legal gun ownership...

Have I missed anything?
 
daceman63 said:
More restrictive gun laws to make legal gun ownership virtually impossible.

Easier access to guns for illegals and criminals

Higher taxes - so we can pay for the influx of illegals because of policies listed below..

Allow illegal imigrants to get valid Mass Driver's Licenses

In State College tuition for illegals - reason higher taxes

Higher crime rate because of illegals

Illegals flocking to mass and taxing our welfare system. - reason for higher taxes

State Welfare System to hand out illegal firearms to illegals to assist in increasing the crime rate to further exploit legal gun ownership...

Have I missed anything?
Click to expand...
I didn't realize that Massachusetts had become California overnight?! That, uhh, sucks pretty bad.
 
daceman63 said:
More restrictive gun laws to make legal gun ownership virtually impossible.
Click to expand...

Well I don't think we should assume it's that exteme. I'm sure it's what he'd like but I'm also sure he won't do it all. I do think he will eliminate FTF transactions and limit purchases to 1/month. It's not over till the fat lady sings. Maybe I'm either just overly optimistic or just naive...[thinking]
 
Last edited:
Can you really trust a politician to do what they say they will do? I'd say there's a .002% chance things won't get worse for us[rolleyes]

Like an anti-gun friend of mine said in trying to get me to support Deval after I found his plans for guns... "I don't think you have to worry, the govener doesn't make the laws the legislature does. The govener is just a leader to bring everyone together"
 
Last edited:
Lugnut said:
Well I don't think we should assume it's that exteme. I'm sure it's what he'd like but I'm also sure he won't do it all. I do think he will eleminate FTF transactions and limit purchases to 1/month. It's not over till the fat lady sings. Maybe I'm either just overly optimistic or just naive...[thinking]
Click to expand...

I agree
Fred
 
Seeing as how the repub govs have signed any gun control bills across thier desk in the last 10 years not a whole lot. the 1 gun a month thing bears watching.
 
Wildweasel said:
Seeing as how the repub govs have signed any gun control bills across thier desk in the last 10 years not a whole lot. the 1 gun a month thing bears watching.
Click to expand...

True, it does bear watching. I've never had the inclination or the funds to buy one gun a month, but if it passes, I'll find both overnight just to spite that bastard and the legislature. I highly suggest that every gun owner do the same just to bring the numbers way up so he can't advertise it as being something good that he did to feather his cap.
 
LenS said:
I don't think it is hopeless. More on my thoughts later.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with you Len. First almost the entire power structure in this
Hellhold is anti firearms. Now that there isn't any impediment whatsoever
(not that there was much before) the loonies are going to run wild. It's
time to join the D's and pretty much relegate the R's to complete oscurity.
At least joining the D's would allow us the opportunity to play in the same
sandlot and perhaps be able to shape candidates and policy at the grass
roots level . The two party system has failed completely, not just here, but
across the entire country (it's hard to tell the D's from the R's) not from
just a firearms POV, but across the entire spectrum of conservativism vs
liberalism. To say that the current crop of R's here, and everywhere else, is
conservative is a joke to say the least. Our support of the R's cannot be for
their conservative viewpoints as they have very few. It is because we
believed that they would provide some impediment to the wild-eyed crazy
element know as the D's and we could 'work with them' to stem the tide
against further erosion of our firearm rights and what we hold to as the norm
in our everyday life. This has failed. It's long time past time for a better
strategy here and across the nation. It's time for a political revolution
with a better strategy that what is on the table.

I am neither R nor D. I have voted for all of my years on the positions that I
hold near and dear to me and tried to support whomever represented those
as close as possible. Unfortunately, they is no one left to vote for around
here. Obviously, my ideals seem to be a strange set to the majority of
voters here and across the country although I could have sworn that most
of the elected officials espoused those same ideals. I guess in the 'heat
of the battle' promises and direction seems to get compromised. I am
nearing the end of my life and I place a lot of blame for this situation on
our generation. We lost the lessons taught us by our forefathers and
in place of personal responsibility we substituted instant gratification and
greed. I have already apologized to my sons for my complicity in this. I have
no grandchildren at this point and, sadly, it wouldn't bother me if I never had
any as I don't think that this is going to be a place you would want your
children's children to be in the very near future.

I wish everyone all the best in relocating to a place where your eventual
demise is not as complete as it is here.

TBP
 
daceman63 said:
Have I missed anything?
Click to expand...

Yep, breach in security letting illegals come in from anywhere and have access to public roadways, buildings, airports, etc. by giving them driver's licenses and Joe Public status.
Mohamed will finally be able to get his driver's license and go to truck driving school where he'll learn how to... well, you get the idea.
 
First let me say I am against the 1 gun a month thing and will fight it out of principle.

But is only 1 gun purchase in MA a month so bad? Long guns you can purchuse from a dealer out of state bring it home and file a registration (purchase not made in MA, how can they regulate it). This has the added benefit of not allowing deval to spend the sale tax $$. The problem would arise if say you purchase a handgun (must be in MA) decide you don't like it and want to return it to buy another one, can you do that within a month? The biggest problem would come if you were to inherit a collection of firearms, since transfers/sales are the same do you now have to inherit them at a rate of 1 per month?

If we can't stop the law all together (and we need to try) we at least need those exceptions put inplace so a "sale" would allow you to "buy" another one, and inherited firearms would not count. I'm sure there are other exceptions that would be needed. Maybe we could sneek in an exception that says "unless the purchaser possesses a valid FID or LTC as described in ch 180...", heck I'd consider supporting the bill if that exception was there, since it would essencially nulify the bill.

Since Deval is also concerned with the decline in MA population I would suggest all those seeking freedom to the north or south write a nice letter to Deval and CC all the rest of legislature in the state your reason for leaving.
 
Milsurps 4 Me said:
Yep, breach in security letting illegals come in from anywhere and have access to public roadways, buildings, airports, etc. by giving them driver's licenses and Joe Public status.
Mohamed will finally be able to get his driver's license and go to truck driving school where he'll learn how to... well, you get the idea.
Click to expand...
This concept that allowing travel without an internal passport threatens the safety of the country is absurd, and serves only to continue the program of brainwashing the public into think that "showing your papers" is the key to a secure society.

Comments like this show how well that the program of re-education is working - even a pro-freedom individual cites allowing travel without showing of one's papers as a breach of security.
 
the federal real id act should prevent illegals from getting licenses. should....

i kinda want them to ban firearms except military or leo. then, being disabled i can file a federal discrimination suit. i can't join the military SOLEY based on my meddical condition. homosexuals and elderly can't SOLEY based on sexual orientation and age. it then becomes discriminatory. like a literacy test to vote, meeting military requirements to exercise your second amendment rights would be struck down. the SCOTUS would be forced to recognize the 2nd as an individual right. exactl opposite of what anti's want. am i missing something?
 
jack01730 said:
the federal real id act should prevent illegals from getting licenses. should....
Click to expand...
Why not just, oh I don't know, enforce the laws we already have? [sad2]

You don't need an law to say that illegals shouldn't be able to get drivers licenses. There is already a law that says it is a crime to enter this country without proper documentation... what we need is to enforce it!

U.S. I.C.E. is the U.S. Dept. of Immigrations & Customs Enforcement, it is their job to round up illegals and ship `em out. Trouble is, they are politically and financially hamstrung by the government from doing their jobs.
 
U.S. I.C.E. is the U.S. Dept. of Immigrations & Customs Enforcement, it is their job to round up illegals and ship `em out. Trouble is, they are politically and financially hamstrung by the government from doing their jobs.
Click to expand...
+1

A fellow that I know is a detention and deportation officer for ICE. IIRC, the annual quota for deportations for the Boston office (covers eastern MA) is 5,000.

Care to guess how many years it would take them to deport all the illegal aliens in Framingham if they were to concentrate their entire effort on that city alone?

Unless they get caught at the border, the only illegal aliens that get deported are those who get convicted of felonies. The rest are ignored.
 
csharpdev said:
First let me say I am against the 1 gun a month thing and will fight it out of principle.

But is only 1 gun purchase in MA a month so bad? Long guns you can purchuse from a dealer out of state bring it home and file a registration (purchase not made in MA, how can they regulate it). .
Click to expand...

Why 1 a month, why not one a year, is that so bad?

The big deal is the ammo taxes and this stuff about forcing you to have insurance on each firearm you own.

Bad things are coming, and not just here: the Dems have the house and the senate and in '08 once Hillary gets in it will be all over. Plus they are going to get us attacked again [sad]
 
Back
Top Bottom