Get your butt to Boston - GOAL Super Alert - Wed 28th!!!!

say you've got a religious holiday today and have to be home, it worked at the last one
 
Last edited:
I just testified. Hopefully I didn’t sound too bad.

I fibbed a little bit about people moving into MA with guns not on the roster being effected by H.2092 - not being able to register them etc. But I don’t care. Had to make a point.
 
Last edited:
My testimony from a few moments ago. I ended up not getting to my key line, since the one who went before me sort of touched at it. The committee have received copies of the below.

Chairmen Moore and Naughton, honorable committee members, fellow citizens, and honored guests. Thank you for permitting me to speak to you today.

About three years ago, I, a Roman Catholic of medieval, philosophical and irenic bent, took up the hobby of sport shooting. Oh, I was introduced to skeet by my grandfather at around age 11, those times being some of my fondest memories of him. My other grandfather, Salvi Pascucci – a police officer in Framingham – kept a revolver in a glass case that I admired from afar, never daring to touch. A small story: when he died at the ripe old age of 95, we came across a photo id of him: he had very recently renewed his LTC, looking in that picture, for all the world, like Mr. Magoo.

But, this time, I took up the sport precisely because, having noticed some quite concerning rhetoric, I wanted to definitively answer a question: are we, in the US still really free? The litmus test I chose was advised, historically the right to bear arms is the right of nobility – a right of kings. Having immersed myself in both the theory and practice, I have learned many things of history, politics, law and moral theology that, I think, you can only learn on the inside, after having entered in. For instance, I learned:

In the founding document of our Commonwealth, the body politic rightly carved out certain limits on government for the common good. A critical natural and unalienable individual right, identified by name by the scholastics, is that of defense against an unjust aggressor, which the enumerated right to keep and bear arms serves to safeguard.

Much of what we have before us today is a concerted assault on that natural right. Of course, under the license of free speech, we tolerate that assault by citizens, as we know that many people, merely foolish or made scared by propaganda in absence of proportional truth, may offer such offense without full culpability, and we have the hope that we can, in time, reason them from the end of this terrible course.

However, legislators, acting on authority granted in the public trust, by sponsoring these bills, have done violence to our right to enjoy our liberties in security. If you proceed to vote for them, you become the unjust aggressors, in violation of your oaths and contrary to the common good: you will be culpable of a battery to the body politic under color of law but explicitly reserved from your power by the very same law that gives you any power. Doing this, you will have made of yourselves outlaw, knowing no restraint of law. By empowering injustice via a writ void ab initio yet having the appearance of law, given the seriousness of the rights to be defended and the use of government force required to execute them, you are formally cooperating – conspiring, “colluding” - in the attempted murder of innocent citizens via authorizing the unjust use of governmental force. We have already seen such State-sanctioned murders in other places.

A government that infringes on natural right, that acts outside the limits of its foundational law, and that intends for its citizens to capitulate to injustice or risk death is a tyranny which must be opposed. I speak today thus plainly, because that which has hitherto been done in shadow must be opposed in the light by men of good faith.

A just law, and justice for the individuals who compose the Commonwealth needs be restored: some of these bills today, like H.2122, begin that healing process. But to the others, I ask you to vote no in the face of these new outrages, like H.3783 and 3782, intentional misfeasance like S.1395. I ask you introduce even more bills to repeal the damage already committed against liberty, lest from the great state of Massachusetts, again, from patriots standing athwart the attempt to execute the designs of tyranny will ring out the next shot heard around the world.

(Mr. Chairman, I can go on a bit more – 2 minutes – or can end here, and take your questions, and put the balance to you by written testimony.)

The original shot heard was also caused by gun control when, following an unjust order, British soldiers went out to seize a cache of weapons held by the militia to further suppressed the power of the citizens to resist. With knowledge of that fact, I ask – I beg - that you do not follow the path you have set forth: it is, I say with no sense of hyperbole whatsoever, a causus belli, and it breaks the social contract on which this Commonwealth was founded. You have reached the Rubicon, against all restraints that have been justly and mercifully laid before you, against all wisdom and guidance. I beg you turn back from your way.

I further ask you to remove the extant outrages this legislative body has previously committed, in stealth, in furtherance of the wicked usurpations of power that these same bills seek to capitalize on, against the enumerated rights in the Massachusetts Constitution, the unenumerated rights referred to as natural law, and in violation of 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 9th amendments et passim. of the U. S. Constitution to which you are bound by the supremacy clause. Most urgently: all null law that carves out special rights for citizens employed by government while simultaneously doing violence to the rights of other citizens, denying them equal protection under the law. Also, those that use some other standard than trial by jury beyond a reasonable doubt as being necessary prior to the imposition of a just restraint of the free exercise of a citizen’s natural rights.

These I beg, petition, and, in strict justice, in surest mercy, respectfully and with all courtesy, demand you do.

(More)
 
...
These I beg, petition, and, in strict justice, in surest mercy, respectfully and with all courtesy, demand you do.

In forma specifica, for the bills under consideration, I offer:

S.1389 – oppose, due to right of commerce, right to protection of papers and property from government control without due process of law, right to keep and bear

S.1388 – oppose, illegal search, right to privacy, the possibility of leaks and doxing people who have committed no wrongdoing for political purposes

S.1387 – oppose, (One could support something like the first section with lots of amendment that, instead of violence prevention programs, the appropriation is for all appropriately aged school children – middle school, I should think - be taught firearms safety by an NRA certified safety instructor, and a campaign of de-hollywoodizing and demystifying firearms through their uses in history. Also, remove the tax on firearms as it is a tax on the exercise of the necessary penumbra of the enumerated right, which is not permissible.) All of section 3 is null and void. Section 4 is unconstitutional prior restraint, the last part of Section 4 violates equal protection under the law. Section 5 is unlawful restraint on free trade in something necessary to a right, equivalent of a ‘tax stamp’ on, say, free speech. Section 6 is highly unlawful restraint on the rights of ownership and keeping arms, and has an intentional chilling effect on the very notion of licenses: this section could not stand up to federal civil rights jurisprudence. A foreseeable administrative error does not rise to the level of a crime, the crime impugned is ab initio void, protected under all manner of the enjoyment of civil rights from both the state and federal constitutional authority, and Federal precedent. Section 9 is an illicit centralized reallocation of powers granted (some of which are defined under federal law) from the cities and respective persons. (The executive and not the legislature may, at best, have this authority.)

H.2040 – oppose except with amendment to just mandate a bit of paint job before use, that’s sufficient.

H.2039 – oppose, but possible amendments: that the firearm, having been acquired illegally, be stored at the states expense, that the state notify the lawful owner of the firearm, and as far as practical returned to its lawful owner within one year, or, if required for evidence, suitable compensation be given. Section 3 – reporting to the federal government may only come after conviction of a felony.

S.1368 – oppose. It’s just another partisan payroll, whose job is, in turns, politically lobbying the government and releasing partisan reports on behalf of the distaff, aimed at getting the state to fund their efforts to further ensconce the violence to the natural and enumerated rights. Stop playing around.

H.2054 – support with amendment: strike the signature requirement, altogether, or make it all deliveries of completed ammunition. In this day and age, it’s adequately onerous, and the requirement is of dubious value in any case: someone intent on committing fraud will do so.

H.2048 – oppose - this is a grave violation of rights without due process, and as such is null ab initio. Someone who is not eligible to own a gun should not be walking around free, they should be institutionalized until they can be restored to sanity. Section 2: this has a chilling effect on actual cases, if your doctor can take away your rights. Being depressed is not a sign that you are suicidal, it is not a judgment of a jury, it does not take away any of your rights. Psychology used in this way, as a means of social control, was Soviet-block stuff, so knock it off. To compel someone to sign a government form under a clinical setting with the implied (even if disavowed) threat of termination of treatment is itself a violation of due process to the vulnerable. Also, procedure: once on the list, how do you get off? What safeguards are in place to prevent fraud or abuse? This is just a hash of legislation.

H.3843 – oppose, except for (g), which I support. Most is null ab initio as it is entirely within the “keep and bear arms” fortress. 11F(c) is insane. 11F(d) is an illegal registry under court precedents. 11F(e). is a violation of property rights. (g) is fine. (h) is wildly disproportionate, and is intended to entrap people engaged in lawful enterprise and exercising lawful freedoms.

H.3576 – oppose. This is an illegal violation of the 5th amendment to the US Constitution, and a compulsion to participate in an illegal exercise of power, I think has already been declared an unconstitutional impingement of the 2nd (maintaining a registry of firearms), and an onerous imposition on natural and enumerated liberty. We already, I believe, have a duty to report when a firearm is stolen, this is just abusive. Also, intentionally violates on of the findings of Heller.

H.2046 – oppose as insane: it criminalizes lawful self-defense, and puts the weight of action on the defender instead of the aggressor. The ‘substantial risk’ is too vague to be tolerable, it could happen at sport shooting events where we already disclaim compensation for liability, it could happen due to malfunctions, but in any case it’s definitely not a felony.( I tried 3 times to make this hash of a bill into something I could at some level support, but I cannot.)

H.2045 – mostly oppose, but possibly support with amend: i. insert ‘non-partisan’, strike ii since it’s ignoratio elenchi, iii not aggregated, but categorized by that list, strike viii as a violation of the right of privacy, add “controlling for poverty rates, compare the effect of Massachusetts’ excessive restrictions with a cohort of similar sized states that has liberalized gun regulations, such as maintaining the right of ‘constitutional carry’”.

H.2044 – oppose, as it inverts justice: the person who stole the device is culpable for the theft and the subsequent use, the person aggressed against is not a moral agent. Many of us have guns we do not utilize often, would not know it was missing for a long time. Inchoate.

H.2052 – support with amendments, no certificate requirements (or if you must, 2 hours training, fee to be paid by the state if the person subsists below the poverty level). These things aren’t rocket science, “don’t shoot at the face” is pretty much the only prohibition. Grandfather clause for extant devices. Use of such a device in furtherance of a felony shall carry a ~2 year additional penalty. Skip that last line, you should still need a warrant, finding it on a stop-and-frisk is not a cause of action. Finally, we should just be giving these out to poor people in the inner cities for free.

H.2051 – support

H.2050 – strongest support

H.2049 – I’d like to support, but the underlying idea is wrong. LEOSA forgets that the LEO derives their power to keep and bear from being citizens in the militia, not because they are or were once paid by government. We have to work to repeal all laws that presume to give ‘more rights’ to LEO, as it inverts the constitutional protections: government is to be restrained, the rights of citizens are not.

S.1395 – oppose – this is the slimy, ratchet-strap burden, where the licensing authority can claim to be perennially backed up, and the person has to keep submitting applications and they keep not getting returned in time, fees returned, and the process starts all over again, but can never claim they have been denied and go on to seek legal recourse. Blatantly unconstitutional, and did I already say slimy?

S.2055 – support. Good job, I had forgotten about this one.
 
S.1404 – support. Someone gets it. I’d say, during a state of emergency, we could safely ignore revocations for non-felonious reasons, and suspensions – maybe give people some wiggle room, or recapitulate the need for the presumption of innocence.

H.2066 – oppose – it’s just a bunch of BS, the expansion to PP is wildly disproportionate, it’s a direct assault on several rights. And who is going to expose themselves to liability to produce (iii)? And (viii) seriously, like for speeding? Get bent. (g) denies equal protection under the law, we do not have a class with ‘special rights’. You’re off your rockers.

S.1413 – support

H.2072 – support, support better with amendment: add ‘or holds a license or permit to carry firearms in their home state’

H.2077 – oppose strenuously. Massive violations of rights. Violates federal law, FOPA. Null ab initio.

S.1424 – oppose, unconstitutional, equal protection, just dumb.

S.1423 – mild oppose: excessive burden on working people, sport shooters, to deal with deliveries. Should only apply to full cartridges and not components (but really, it shouldn’t apply at all). I mean, my delivery people know where to put my stuff so it’s safe, many people have cameras, &c.

S.1422 – Support

S.1421 – Support. Feels like someone slipped something slimy that this is fixing, which is towards the good.

S.1420 – support

S.1419 – support

S.1418 – support

H.2080 – oppose strenuously, same as H.1395 - the authority can claim to be perennially backed up, and the person has to keep submitting applications and they keep not getting returned in time, fees returned, and the process starts all over again, but can never claim they have been denied and go on to seek legal recourse. Instead, the license authority shall issue or shall deny at 30 days. This is a blatantly unconstitutional restraint. Also, slimy.

S.1426 – oppose, as H.2046 – criminally, culpably unjust law.

H.3577 – oppose, same as H.2045. It’s just a con job.

H.2079 – strongly oppose. Whoever drafted this is a psycho. Wild infringements on, like…all the rights.

H.2096 – strongly oppose. Limiting entirely protected exercise of rights against all restraint, and violates, again, all the rights.

H.2095 – strongly oppose. Limiting entirely protected exercise of rights, also violates protections against papers and effects. Limits the natural right of self-defense (so-called large capacity is necessary to mount the appropriate level of defense – it’s the same for citizens as for citizens who are also LEO). Violates equal protection under the law. Imagine if this wasn’t the 2nd amendment, but the 1st: sure, you can speak freely, but you are only allowed 140 characters a day, and to do so, you have to register. Unconscionable.

H.2094 – strongly oppose. Limiting exercise of enumerated rights that the government is given no power to infringe.

H.2093 – strongly oppose. This is rank slavery, a command to do a thing prior to being free to exercise enumerated rights. This infringement is mind-boggling. Could a State licitly demand liability insurance before the citizens are allowed to speak? The right to bear arms is even more important than the right to free speech.

H.2093 – strongly oppose. Infringement on the right to keep and bear (which necessitates “acquire”), and natural property rights. Empty laws - existing infringements, which are null and void ab initio, do not give strength to new laws that are also null and void.

H.2091 – strongly oppose. Mentally ill legislation. void ab initio. What is with the is 5 hours and 60 rounds? I couldn’t shoot that slow if I tried, I’d probably pull a muscle. Imagine what it would be like if you were commanded that before you could speak freely, you were put in a room with a bunch of people who screamed at you for 5 hours, very slowly.

H.2089 – oppose. “Dangerous” can mean hands, even boxing gloved hands, or hockey sticks during a game. It could mean your car used without malicious intent. This is just a stealth, widespread denial of rights wildly disproportionate to the offenses, rising at least to the level of ‘unusual punishment’. Ridiculous punishment is more apt. Might as well take away the freedom of speech for everybody who jaywalks.

H.2099 – mild support, but I’m not entirely sure what the intent is

H.2103 – support

H.2108 – oppose. Insufficiently specified about intent. Fails equal protection. LEO are citizens in the militia, which is why they are empowered to carry weapons. They don’t get ‘more rights’ than any other citizen. The whole knife thing is dumb as a stump anyway. (We should definitely permit people to carry knives longer than 2’ in length.)

S.1451 – oppose. Wildly disproportionate, unusual. Violations of fundamental rights. Another law that will be used with prosecutorial malfeasance to jam up citizens.

S.1450 – oppose. A bunch more politically-connected hacks in seats with the intent of keeping the public on edge for, let’s face it, an issue of trivially limited consideration. The expectation of malfeasance of members of this body is high. (I’m willing to change my mind if there are coherent reasons, but it seems fair, given its origin, that it’s all just political nonsense and pay offs.)

H.2117 – oppose. Just no. Violation of enumerated rights. Nobody should or reasonably will ever trust their life to a ‘smart gun’. But, if you want to pursue this, see how the police feel about it: let them be the guinea pigs. They’ll tell you where to get off.

H.2122 – strongly support. Will pledge my life, fortune, and sacred honor.

H.2131 – strongly support.

H.2130 – support with small amendments to fourteen for a few things. Like permit reasonable facsimile of presentation of license.

H.2129 – support

H.2133 – support

H.3782 – oppose – mentally ill, a violation of, again, all the civil rights. Intentionally violates Heller.

H.3783 – oppose with my life. Also, mentally ill. Void ab initio…I’d say, void pre initio, if such a thing were possible. A literal act of tyranny.

H.2151 – support wholeheartedly

H.2154 – support wholeheartedly

H.2153 – support

S.1361 – oppose, massive rights violation, also insane definitions. No registry permitted – can I register your vocal chords before you are allowed to speak? Are you going to register hammers (which have, year after year, a higher body count than rifles). Free exercise, right of property. Arms aren’t “special” in that they are not a category that you can justly moderate, you are prohibited from doing so. They are “special” in that they enjoy special protections from those who would tyrannize.

S.1360 – oppose, as above

S.1369 – nihil obstat

S.3927 – oppose, mischief: someone resells it to someone in another state, who lives in a free constitutional republic and so doesn’t need a license, and bang, you’re jammed up.



Testimony submitted this, the 28th day of August, in the year of our Lord 2019,

Yours sincerely,





Jason R. Pascucci

Milford, MA
 
Well did anyone like my commonsense bingo?

So here were my notes, in case anyone cares....

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780) MA Constitution

With all due respect to the Bloomberg astroturf activists

I’d like to speak today about Commonsense. By definition, not the dogwhistle infringing commonsense, but actual commonsense

Is it commonsense to suddenly ban thousands of pieces of plastic that have been in the commonwealth peacefully since 1998? I speak of course of standard capacity magazines that have benn politically renamed high capacity.

Is it commonsense to place a regressive 4.75% tax on firearm components that will disproportionally impact communities of color? (sop to SJW's)

Is it commonsense to cause all firearms to be listed for sale go through a fire process from the State Crime lab that has zero chance of not causing a backlog that will only make the wait for a License to carry renewal seem short?

Is it commonsense to allow anyone, without fear of repercussion or due process, add you to what seems to basically be the gun version of a no-fly list?

Is it commonsense to be forced to register an unserialized piece of plastic?

BILL H3783 Is it commonsense to burden local police departments with an unfunded mandate to inspect everyone’s firearms annually? Are the overtaxed departments in the cities of the Commonwealth going to be forced to divert resources from community policing

BILL H3781 Is it commonsense to force a 10 day waiting period, when in MA, every purchase has been vetted by MIRCS and NICS?

I had more, but 'your time has expired'
 
Felt like I stumbled through it but here was my testimony before Andrew
My name is Zach, founder and former President of the UMass Lowell Firearms Club, I am MA State Police and NRA Certified Instructor who is registered with the Pink Pistols and Operation Blazing Sword as LGBTQ friendly. I am a Massachusetts resident and of course a gun owner. I come before you today to advocate for : S.1424, S.1421/H.2099, S.1417

(Non-Res $40/6ys, Removes AG regulation powers, Suppressors)


And against: H.2091, H.2092, H.2093/S.1360, H.2094, H.2095, H. 3843/H.2096


S.1424- length of Non Residents should be the same as Resident LTC/FID

S.1417- would greatly benefit residents near gun ranges as it would reduce noise pollution

S.1421/H.2099- Removing AG powers would eliminate an unnecessary redundancy considering EOPS already tests handguns to their standards and the AGs list hasn’t been published since the late 90’s and dictates year after year Glocks are illegal to sell to citizens yet are somehow safe for cops only. Even though EOPS lists them every year a new model is released.


H.2091- The requirement of 5 hours of live fire training would impede my ability to work with the UMLPD on campus running Home Firearm Safety courses which are not live fire. I have established a great working relationship with UMLPD and we have helped over 40 college students get their FID/LTCs who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford these classes. Enacting this will add another egregious hurdle to the exercising of their constitutional rights.

H.2092- we legal gun owners already report sales of firearms through the eFA-10 portal. Why punish those of us who already follow the law?

H.2093- the requirement of liability insurance is another attempt to price those of lower income brackets out of the ability to exercise their rights

H.2094- This Bill will negatively affect people who move into MA from out of state and would prevent them from selling their firearms that otherwise wouldn’t be illegal.

H.2095- banning magazines won’t stop criminals from already ignoring the existing AWB and will make criminals of otherwise law abiding people who have owned these magazines for decades and have not committed crimes with them.

H. 3843/H.2096- people should be allowed to craft their own firearms if they choose to. People who make their own are hobbyists who enjoy tinkering with mills, computer code, or other machines to build something them selves. As long as they follow existing federal and state law there is no reason to further infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
 
Back
Top Bottom