Do you like anything about Mass's gun laws?

[Republic of Mass]

Another member's post about a good experience at S&W made me realize that it could be worse.

So I was thinking, a few things that I personaly do like..... And im curious of your opinion on how I see these things, and how you see other things as well in MGL's

*We dont have a waiting period.

*They dont tell us how many we can buy.

*New computer system makes it harder for people who dont have any business possesing a firearm from getting one.....


So, I'll start at the top. Waiting Period. [if i were a possesed killer] If I'm going to kill someone, Im going to do it. Im not going to waste a few hours to go get a gun from a shop, figure how to use it, then go hole-punching. If I need to do it, I have a car . And, if it's a planned event, I can think far enough in advance to order my G-Lock 10 days before the due-date [/if i were a possesed killer]. Seriously, what do waiting periods achieve?

I have a lisence, and god knows that, as a resident of MA, I haven't ever used a fly-swatter, bug-spray, or been the cause of road-kill, so surely I'm not purchasing guns to transfer such registered device to a gang-banger, so thank's for realizing that Im not supplying New Bedford's armed sh*tbags and trying to restrict just how many I can buy and sell for crack or booty on the streets....

And yea. This new "instantly if you're wanted or have a 209a (restraining) order on your name we'll stop your ability to buy guns" is pretty *cool*... These people have no business being in possesion of a firearm, they make a bad name for all of us responsible citizens, and I like that they're going to have to jump through more (illegal) hoops to get a firearm... And heck, I waited 73 days for my license, I like to think that it was of a little good use....


But, yea, thats where it ends... These liberal MF's and their "oh, you need to have a fingertip strong enough to pull a bus to pull the trigger" and "oh, im stupid, and need to be able to tell the gun is loaded, so do you" ideas that they're Keeping Me Safe (Isnt that the idea behind consumer protection?)

Well guess what AG @$$hole, you're doing quite the oposite, by making guns more dangerous by adding features that tend to lower proper firearm handeling procedures, and also F***ing me in the bum becasue now Im paying sometimes 1.5x more than consumers in 48 other states, because of said "consumer protection regulations"


Ugh, now im all wound up....

OK so lets hear it, flam me, aggree with me, im just curious where you all stand on these different parts of Mass's laws and regulations

 

[Len-2A Training]

I'll disagree with the 209As in some cases. I know some divorce lawyers and the first thing they tell their female clients is to get a 209A so that they have all the bargaining chips. I worked with one guy at the late DEC who had one of his tenants (he owned the building and the tenant was being evicted for cause) get a 209A against him. Since he was a Reserve PO in that town, the chief was apologetic, but had to confiscate his guns.

If someone is truly abusive and it isn't unsubstantiated trumped up BS, then I have no problem with the 209A, but it is much abused and the instigators are pissed off women and their attorneys. All it takes is a phone call "I feel threatened" to get a 209A good for 10 days (before the required hearing) . . . and even if it is vacated by the judge damn few chiefs will give back the guns and LTC.

None of the licensing (or 209As) prevents illegal possession of guns. Any dirtbag can go to a streetcorner in a major city and buy a gun off the street within 30 minutes.

Now for what I like in MA gun laws:

- By statute, with a LTC there are NO restrictions on where you can legally carry concealed (except schools/colleges). Many other states have all sorts of restrictions by statute (different than some business refusing entry or buildings with metal detectors, etc.).

- The fact that we can actually get a LTC, unlike vast parts of CA, NYC, NJ, IL, etc.

It's too late, I'll think of more later. [twisted]

 

[Buffalo Bill]

Good parts of Mass. laws

There are two positives in the "worse gun laws" in the country that I can think of. First is under the "Castle Law" in Mass.(MGL Chapter 283 Sec. 8A) if there is an intruder in your home that has a weapon, or you believe will cause you, or a third party, death or great bodily harm, you have no duty to retreat before using deadly force. In some states you actually have to try to escape from your own home. Secondly, under state law(MGL Chapter 231 Sec. 85U) if you need to use deadly force, and injure or kill the assailant, and it is ruled a justafiable shooting or homicide, you cannot be prosecuted criminally, or sued civilly. 8)


" Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense." "...legitimate defense can be not only a right, but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family, or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, ...even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason."
       Evangelium Vitae Encyclical Letter on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life-His Holiness Pope John
Paul II March 25, 1995[/quote]

 

[Buffalo Bill]

The above facts............

having been posted will be no cause for regret when I become a New Hampshire resident on June 2nd, or 3rd. A state where gun ownership and the right to protect oneself, family, and property is not a privilege, but a right under their Constitution, and where I don't have to check the "approved roster" to see if a pistol I like is deemed "safe" and therefore "compliant" for purchase by the moron in the AG's office. I just may celebrate by ordering a brand spankin' new Colt Model O Gold Cup Trophy or a Colt 1911-A1. [lol]

 

[Lynne]

We don't have a waiting period because of the Federal NICS check. The only time you might have to wait is if it comes back delayed, but worst case with that would be up to 3 days (given that you're approved). Sometimes delays happen either because of something in your past, or you may have the same name, but different middle inital as a bad boy, etc, etc. They hold on it until it's verified that it's not you.

What you don't seem to understand about our laws is that #1 - we have an AG who put the whammie on buying whatever type of firearm (not talking full auto here) we want because if it doesn't have a hidden serial number, that gun might just kill me. He didn't even had to run it by the crooks on the hill - he just implemented it with out one single piece of evidence that it was needed or necessary - not one.

#2 - Laws have been shoved down our throats that impede our rights as set forth in both state and federal Constitutions to "stop crime" when multiple states have stats showing that lessening of infringements/
restriction of right to carry laws reduces crime, not tightening the handcuffs on the lawful's wrists.

#3 - The new machines - yes, I'll grant you that it hurries the process along, however, I do not feel warm and fuzzy about it. It also adds to the expense of the FFL's, and personally, I believe that's the real reason. FFL's in this state took a major financial hit when the AG ran amuck with his CMP - now add the expense of new equipment to that and what's the intent? Try driving them out of business so we have no one to buy guns and ammo from.

I haven't been fighting the gun fight for as long as some folks on this forum, but I've been fighting long enough to know that the end result of the laws are to disarm US, not the bad guys. But what the hell, it's "for the children", right? [roll]

God I hate this state....

 

[Lynne]

Re: Good parts of Mass. laws

There are two positives in the "worse gun laws" in the country that I can think of. First is under the "Castle Law" in Mass.(MGL Chapter 283 Sec. 8A) if there is an intruder in your home that has a weapon, or you believe will cause you, or a third party, death or great bodily harm, you have no duty to retreat before using deadly force. In some states you actually have to try to escape from your own home. Secondly, under state law(MGL Chapter 231 Sec. 85U) if you need to use deadly force, and injure or kill the assailant, and it is ruled a justafiable shooting or homicide, you cannot be prosecuted criminally, or sued civilly. 8)

The Castle law only changed a few years ago, and only because a mother was arrested for shooting an intruder rather than leaving the house. She didn't run because she had two young children in the house. There was SOME sanity on the hill that day when they changed it.

And don't bet the house that you won't be sued by the assailants family....not in this state.

 

[Len-2A Training]

A clarification might be in order here on the MA Castle Law.

The woman shot her ex-husband who had broken into her house, after he had threatened to "kill them all" (children included) by "burning them out while they slept"! He was coming up the stairs (inside the house) "to get her" (and the children?) when she shot him.

She was convicted of either murder or manslaughter for the "Crime" of not "running away" under the MGLs at that time. A hue and outcry raised the attention of our legislators and Gov. King signed the "Gloria Shaffer" <sp> bill (aka Castle Law). She did serve time and ended up with a permanent arrest/conviction record from this event. Ed King was Governor from 1979 to 1983, so "recent" is a relevant term regarding how long this law has been on the books. <not picking on ya, Lynne, just setting the record straight >

My source for this information was the arresting officer (who told me he hated having to arrest her, but he was required to under the law at that time), who was our Police Chief at the time of this event (and he was a close personal friend).

 

[TonyD]

So, the legislators make a new law condoning her actions as her right to protect herself, and children, but the 'system' criminalizes her and strips her right to ever protect herself again?

Typical. [roll]

 

[Lynne]

So, the legislators make a new law condoning her actions as her right to protect herself, and children, but the 'system' criminalizes her and strips her right to ever protect herself again?

Typical. [roll]

Yeah...that about sums it up.

 

[Lynne]

A clarification might be in order here on the MA Castle Law.

The woman shot her ex-husband who had broken into her house, after he had threatened to "kill them all" (children included) by "burning them out while they slept"! He was coming up the stairs (inside the house) "to get her" (and the children?) when she shot him.

She was convicted of either murder or manslaughter for the "Crime" of not "running away" under the MGLs at that time. A hue and outcry raised the attention of our legislators and Gov. King signed the "Gloria Shaffer" <sp> bill (aka Castle Law). She did serve time and ended up with a permanent arrest/conviction record from this event. Ed King was Governor from 1979 to 1983, so "recent" is a relevant term regarding how long this law has been on the books. <not picking on ya, Lynne, just setting the record straight >

My source for this information was the arresting officer (who told me he hated having to arrest her, but he was required to under the law at that time), who was our Police Chief at the time of this event (and he was a close personal friend).

Thanks Len. I thought there was another case as well (it may be the same one) where he chased her into the basement and she could have gone through the cellar door, but shot him instead. Stories get twisted in the retelling, but I thought this one was only eight or ten years old (give or take).

 

[Len-2A Training]

Tony, no she was convicted, served time and upon appeal some traction gripped her cause and the law was passed some years after she was convicted. Regardless, she lost all her gun rights as of the 1998 law anyway.

Lynne, I heard two versions of Gloria Shaffer's story. One was he was in the lower level (cellar) and she shot him on the stairs coming up at her. The other story was that it was a 2 level house, but the same scenario.

Unfortunately, the Chief has been deceased (cancer) since 1985, so I have no way to get further details anymore.

 

[crittergitter]

The thing I like the most about mass gun laws is the fact that I live between mass and canada, right here in new hampshire.

 

[FalArAk]

I NEVER would have gotten a CCW in Cali,at least the part I was living in.I got one here no problem(Worcester) Cali also has worse gun laws than we do,so it's not all that bad.It could be a lot worse.

 

[crittergitter]

Does Mass allow all of the NFA stuff? You know, the fun stuff like silencers and full auto's? Short barrell rifles/shotgunns and the like? [?]

 

[Len-2A Training]

No, but F/A is legally allowed by special license. You MUST be a collector or police firearms instructor to get it and many chiefs won't issue them at all.

Silencers are illegal. Not 100% positive but I think SBRs may also be illegal here.

Very few clubs allow you to shoot F/A and there are damn few/no sandpits to use in Eastern MA.

Personally, I find that I can burn thru a lot of ammo with a semi-auto in short order and I like "aimed fire", so I'm not a big fan of F/A. Fired one once, POS S&W 76 that climbed to the sky (rounds probably landed in town of Stoughton to be more precise) and was not impressed. [This was during a PD qual shoot, they wanted to "familiarize" us with the smg . . . too bad they didn't bring out the Thompsons that our PD owns! ]

 

[FalArAk]

Need a manufacturer license to own a silencer.as far as f/a,just need a c&r license,a cool chief and lotsa cash.SBR's aren't illegal,just need a "special" license.

Harvard is a great club,I seen/fired all of the above last weekend

 

[Cross-X]

Rather than full auto, I would much prefer a .50 BMG!

 

[KMaurer]

Rather than full auto, I would much prefer a .50 BMG!

Well then, if you only want a bolt or semi-auto .50, then it's just a matter of money. Of course, as we all know from television, all lawyers are stinking rich, so you won't have any problems. [roll]

Ken

 

[Cross-X]

Make mine a Barrett. Come to think of it, I'll take two!

 

[Republic of Mass]

Make mine a Barrett. Come to think of it, I'll take two!

FORGET THAT!

Dude, how are we going to hide in the woods and kill the entire population with a semi-auto .50bmg! The deflected cases will surely show our position to the democrats!

 

[Cross-X]

I didn't realize that Barrett is now making .50 BMG revolvers.

Silly me!



[lol]

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Barrett

The Barrett is a nice gun, but if you wand half MOA look at a McMillan Tac 50 or a Windrunner. These ar esingle shot or bolt, but far more capable of precise shooting than a Barrett.

 

[Cross-X]

Re: Barrett

The Barrett is a nice gun, but if you wand half MOA look at a McMillan Tac 50 or a Windrunner. These ar esingle shot or bolt, but far more capable of precise shooting than a Barrett.

Heretic in the house!

Red alert!

 

[Cross-X]

If the Barrett is good enough for the USMC, it sure is good enough for me.

"Nuff said.

 

[Republic of Mass]

If the Barrett is good enough for the USMC, it sure is good enough for me.

"Nuff said.

I thought the marines are using the M40A3 as their Covert Sniper rifle on true sniper missions.
(which is a heavily modified remington 700)

 

[crittergitter]

a SR-25 would work nicely.

 

[Republic of Mass]

Well, to get back on topic, I do like the idea that not anyone can go to walmart to buy ammo for their stolen/unlicensed firearm.

I realize that my town, as well as many, have "shall-issue" policies, unless disqualified by law. Unfortunatetly some are not as fortunate.

But, that aside, I like the idea that it's just that much harder to put ammunition into the hands of people who dont belong with them. I.E. gangsters, fellons, and people with restrainig orders. For the most part, in my opionin, these people have no business being near firearms, based on their prior poor decisions (lets not get into the whole restraining order, new thread to follow), and therefore limiting ammo purchases to license holders is, in my opinion, perfectly legitimate. If you dont legaly own a gun, you have no reason to buy the ammo.

 

[crittergitter]

I couldn't agree more. However it seems that it makes it alot more difficult for the good folk to go thru the process. I don't want to think about what life would be like if every scum bag had a gun, but even worse is the prospect that many good people are turned off by all the paperwork and b.s.. In the end I wonder if the guns laws designed to protect the good people have an adverse effect. After all, bad guys don't realy care about the laws anyway. It seems to me that strictly regulating all the good people probaly does not do much to keep a gun out of the hands of a thug. my $.02

 

[Cross-X]

I like the notion that we can be in full compliance with secure storage laws when we snap an el-cheapo lock on a gun and leave it in plain view on the dresser.

Unbelieveable! What kind of security is that?

What a country!

 

[garandman]

Some Southern states have a tax that has to be paid on each firearm purchased.

Unlike Texas, you can CCW in bars.

Hope you all show up at the state house for hearings on the Governor's proposed bill to restrict purchases to one a month, and require all purchases to go through an FFL!