GOAL ALERT

can someone provide an intelligent argument for opposing this: H.2091 - Live fire requirement for license courses

Why on earth wouldn't you want someone who is getting a license to have at least fired a gun before??
Because it's a solution in search of a problem, and throws up yet another barrier to gun ownership.

How often is someone injured by a licensed owner who has never fired a gun before? I bet that number is single digits over the past decade.
 
What exactly does "attendance at this hearing in opposition" entail? I'm not sure that I could manage anything more than to sit and scowl.
My question as well. I think I can be there but some guidance from GOAL on what would be helpful would be appreciated. How can they possibly address all these bills in one afternoon session?
 
It appears that they want to make it extremely difficult for anyone to follow all of the laws regarding firearms (long or short). Then essentially creating a system which would put a huge onus on selling or transferring (ie test firing by the state crime lab, like they have nothing better to do, or likely they need another Dookhan in charge), not to mention giving the local police a complete pass on the 4th Amendment. I also expect that everyone of these requirements will not apply to police or correctional guards and of course not to the criminals that actually commit the crimes they are trying to prevent.

How do the police feel that they are always treated so special? Do they care?
 
Who should I include in the list to the authorities that were on my boat when it sank?

“Yes, we all had our full collection of guns with us!”
“ Location? ”
“I dunno, 25, 30 miles off shore”
“And yes, it is coincidental that my brother in law & HIS boat showed up at that vey time”

Easy Martha, only kidding. Lol
 
I said intelligent argument. We already have licensing and opposing that bill won't change that. Next?
I think what he mean was it would just further validate the practice of licensing as a requirement to own firearms, which is unfair and illegal according to the constitution.
Smartass........
 
Holy shit. Good luck Mass folks! Show up strong!

can someone provide an intelligent argument for opposing this: H.2091 - Live fire requirement for license courses

Why on earth wouldn't you want someone who is getting a license to have at least fired a gun before??

I said intelligent argument. We already have licensing and opposing that bill won't change that. Next?

RI has a mandatory shooting test for its carry permitting system (carry permits are not required for ownership). As others have posted, more burdens on the right to own burden society's most vulnerable - people without the ability to shell out money. How much does a LTC cost you guys + how much do you overpay for guns in comparison to states like RI, NH, and Maine?

Further, you need to train with your gun, not the old S&W Model 10 hanging out at Castle Island. Therefore, more burdens required prior to ownership prevent that from happening.

There's also an argument to be made that further requirements can be deadly. Say you have someone who's facing a credible threat to their life. As in they have a stalker or burglars or rape or some violent, imminent crime is possible. Denying someone the ability to buy a gun quickly and efficiently (more testing delays the permitting process) can be lethal, or at least damned dangerous, for people who need the ability to defend themselves. Think of the appellant in Caetano - it was a young girl who bought mace to protect herself from a vindictive ex.

Actually, there's another one too. Someone needs a LTC for mace. What good is a firearms shooting class going to do for someone who wants a can of mace?

And of course, all gun laws are an infringement. I don't suggest saying that in front of a committee, I just want to say it here.

Licensing in MA doesn't exist to certify proficiency with firearms. Rather, it is a barrier to ownership, and its lack presents a complication and barrier to becoming proficient through practice and training at the range of your choice. By requiring 5 hours of live fire training (even if only 50 actual rounds), the bill increases the effort, and inevitably the cost, of obtaining a license. While nobody is arguing that a given licensee shouldn't have live fire training, actually requiring it in this manner is clearly designed to thin the ranks of those who will go to the trouble of becoming licensed. The alternative, coming from Linsky, is completely unthinkable, that the point is to have more proficient licensees. That's not what Linsky wants. He wants fewer licensees.

This guy gets it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I said intelligent argument. We already have licensing and opposing that bill won't change that. Next?
Is there a qualification to vote or exercise free speech or religion? When that happens, talk to me. Some rights are not greater than others
 
I said intelligent argument. We already have licensing and opposing that bill won't change that. Next?
Really? Cmon man!
How bout the old...the range officer is booked up for the next 6 months, then the range is closed for the following 6 months for maintenance story or whatever b.s. excuse will be used.
 
I'm offering $100.00 gas/fuel money to one individual gun owner who packs up their belongings and moves out of MA if any of those ridiculous bills pass.
I'd take you up on this if I was single but I'm not. I'm working on getting out as soon as I can but I don't know if it will be soon enough.
 
My question as well. I think I can be there but some guidance from GOAL on what would be helpful would be appreciated. How can they possibly address all these bills in one afternoon session?

It's the same old same old, pick a few bills that you can cover in a minute or two and speak out against them. Or, pick a couple that you like and speak out for them, give a few reasons why it ought to pass, or why it shouldn't pass. You can also submit written testimony at the hearing, which is always good.

So which is it? 10:00AM or 1:00PM View attachment 298977

They changed the time because a committee member had a scheduling conflict. It's now scheduled for 10AM
 
It appears that they want to make it extremely difficult for anyone to follow all of the laws regarding firearms (long or short). Then essentially creating a system which would put a huge onus on selling or transferring (ie test firing by the state crime lab, like they have nothing better to do, or likely they need another Dookhan in charge), not to mention giving the local police a complete pass on the 4th Amendment. I also expect that everyone of these requirements will not apply to police or correctional guards and of course not to the criminals that actually commit the crimes they are trying to prevent.

How do the police feel that they are always treated so special? Do they care?

And then they're going to raise your taxes to pay for it all.

No they don't care, they are your betters.
 
Back
Top Bottom