GOAL Files Emergency Legislation

[jasons]

And this is why the definition of AP is so hard to nail down. It has a steel core in the base and has penetration enhancements but is not AP in and of itself.

Yep. Real AP has a hardened steel or (better yet) tungsten core and is specifically designed for armor. The mild steel cores in m855 or the commie stuff is just to reduce cost I think. Any improvement it it's ability to punch through light armor is coincidental.

Not that it should matter to the moonbats. A .22 will penetrate the stuff they're freaking out about. (Soft vests, car doors, Dench's trapper keeper, etc.)

 

[Palladin]

you're arguing with morons who get their info from Wiki!!!

 

[terraformer]

you're arguing with morons who get their info from Wiki!!!

And it's different from arguing here how???

The point being is the entire state get's their local news from this site. Let's make sure they get our perspective in the comments.

 

[jasons]

Guys, be careful not to get drawn out by irrelevant arguments. This bill has nothing to do with AP ammo or automatic weapons. We are merely seeking a compromise that would correct the injustice of becoming a "paper felon" when the state fails to follow it's own renewal law.

 

[cekim]

Guys, be careful not to get drawn out by irrelevant arguments. This bill has nothing to do with AP ammo or automatic weapons. We are merely seeking a compromise that would correct the injustice of becoming a "paper felon" when the state fails to follow it's own renewal law.

Yeah, how the hell did we get on full-auto and AP?

The reason a civilian needs to own full-auto BTW is that they are a heck of a lot of fun...

 

[jasons]

Yeah, how the hell did we get on full-auto and AP?

The reason a civilian needs to own full-auto BTW is that they are a heck of a lot of fun...

They are a lot of fun.

 

[terraformer]

Yeah, how the hell did we get on full-auto and AP?

The reason a civilian needs to own full-auto BTW is that they are a heck of a lot of fun...

Some troll started to pontificate and I unfortunately fed him.

 

[OfficerObie59]

people in the .mil are some of the poorest educated people around when it comes to guns. i used to be one of them, although not nearly the worse.

People used to think that the green paint on M855 was what made it AP. I shit you not.

BRB, heading to the hardware store. What color provides the most potent AP capabilities, forest canopy or mint leaf?

Actually M855 is not AP. The green tip simply indicates that it's 62 grain ("heavy") ammo for A2 rifles and SAWs as opposed to the old 55 grain stuff for the A1s.

Black tip is AP in case you're wondering.

green is AP and orange is tracer

Even our supply didnt know why it had paint on it. maybe to mark it as M855? Jesus.

We were also routinly told by our supply that each round was serialized, and if we lost any of them or shot them and tried to replace them we would be caught. they said the serial number was on the headstamp, which all looked identical to us. ugh.

people did take range ammo and set up their own mini ranges in the woods as far as I knew. everyone knew that serial number on the brass thing was BS.

Pffftttt. Amateurs.

You guys haven't lived until you've shot .50 BMG armor-piercing incendiary out of a full-auto General Motors-built Ma Deuce into an combloc APC from a Humvee turret. 'MURICA, bitches!

I loved my MK-19, but I still get goosebumps thinking about shooting that .50 cal.

Guys, be careful not to get drawn out by irrelevant arguments.

Oh, look---A SQUIRREL.

 

[cekim]

Some troll started to pontificate and I unfortunately fed him.

I love how all these "reasonable restrictions" and "common sense" arguments immediate veer into already absurdly regulated, exceedingly rare, expensive and other wise non-factors in crime...

It would be like talking about traffic laws and immediately jumping to banning F1 cars from the street because they go too fast (for those playing the home game, they are already not allowed on the street).

Even that is far too reasonable an analogy - perhaps jumping to banning F22's from the highway? That would be more directly parallel.

 

[chaser001]

I love how all these "reasonable restrictions" and "common sense" arguments immediate veer into already absurdly regulated, exceedingly rare, expensive and other wise non-factors in crime...

It would be like talking about traffic laws and immediately jumping to banning F1 cars from the street because they go too fast (for those playing the home game, they are already not allowed on the street).

Even that is far too reasonable an analogy - perhaps jumping to banning F22's from the highway? That would be more directly parallel.

No all airplanes need to be banned from the roads...there have been too many deaths already; it's for the children.

 

[Racenet]

No all airplanes need to be banned from the roads...there have been too many deaths already; it's for the children.

 

[Bill Katt]

Between the Lynnfield comments and the Tewksbury comments, Tewksbury seems to have the most 'antis'. However, both comment sections have been ignoring what the issue of the article actually is.

 

[OfficerObie59]

I love how all these "reasonable restrictions" and "common sense" arguments immediate veer into already absurdly regulated, exceedingly rare, expensive and other wise non-factors in crime...

It would be like talking about traffic laws and immediately jumping to banning F1 cars from the street because they go too fast (for those playing the home game, they are already not allowed on the street).

Even that is far too reasonable an analogy - perhaps jumping to banning F22's from the highway? That would be more directly parallel.

QFT.

 

[terraformer]

Between the Lynnfield comments and the Tewksbury comments, Tewksbury seems to have the most 'antis'. However, both comment sections have been ignoring what the issue of the article actually is.

So wait, the comments are not spread across zones? The lynnfield one is really North Andover. Someone post the one for tewskbury.

 

[Bill Katt]

So wait, the comments are not spread across zones? The lynnfield one is really North Andover. Someone post the one for tewskbury.

http://tewksbury.patch.com/articles/should-massachusetts-gun-control-laws-be-loosened

I don't know how many 'patches' there are but I'm sure each has it's own comments.

 

[Bill Katt]

Click on Ma. it shows (I think) ALL the different 'Patches'.

http://www.patch.com/

 

[chaser001]

Click on Ma. it shows (I think) ALL the different 'Patches'.

http://www.patch.com/

The comments I made on the Tewksbury Patch are ending up on the Medford patch. That explains excess of moonbats.

 

[terraformer]

The comments I made on the Tewksbury Patch are ending up on the Medford patch. That explains excess of moonbats.

Yeah, it seems as though there are a different comment pools but they encompass multiple towns each. I was hoping it was one big pool for MA but alas...

 

[jasons]

Yeah, it seems as though there are a different comment pools but they encompass multiple towns each. I was hoping it was one big pool for MA but alas...

Here's another one with another bunch of different comments: http://sudbury.patch.com/articles/tell-us-should-massachusetts-gun-control-laws-be-loosened

 

[Len-2A Training]

http://tewksbury.patch.com/articles/should-massachusetts-gun-control-laws-be-loosened

I don't know how many 'patches' there are but I'm sure each has it's own comments.

Correct, comments are limited to the Patch you are looking at. TOO MANY to spread ourselves over and be useful.

 

[terraformer]

Here's another one with another bunch of different comments: http://sudbury.patch.com/articles/tell-us-should-massachusetts-gun-control-laws-be-loosened

Frankly, they have that handled on their own. Mostly good comments, at least at the beginning.

 

[Bill Katt]

Frankly, they have that handled on their own. Mostly good comments, at least at the beginning.

Acton started off ok...... ETA...Acton and Sudbury have the same comment 'pool'.

Beacon Hill took NO time at all for someone to bring up Zimmerman.

 

[TomH]

I seem to recall that in NH last year, the NRA opposed the new law about constitutional carry because it didn't have everything that they wanted in it... and got a HUGE ration of crap because the law didn't pass.

How is this case different?

It's different because what the NRA wanted was crap. The NRA supports restrictions to the 2nd Amendment.

I hope that they can change it a little. I don't see how you can get an unrestricted license issued when you already have a restricted license, if there is no process to void the restricted license. Having the license revoked isn't something you really want on your record either, whether or not it was for a good reason. You know that cops in certain areas would see this as a good thing, and do something like issue all restricted and refuse to revoke anyone's license. Just because the bill isn't supposed to "do everything" doesn't mean people shouldn't use common sense and work to prevent future problems for fanatical antis to take advantage of.

 

[Fixxah]

Acton started off ok...... ETA...Acton and Sudbury have the same comment 'pool'.

Beacon Hill took NO time at all for someone to bring up Zimmerman.

Excellent! Good to see that they feel GZ was railroaded.

-tapatalk and Devin McCourty blow chunks-

 

[kingfisher]

Despite what was in your link, the LAW precludes a chief from expiring a license. According to the statute they can only suspend or revoke, that's it.

<snip>

The same section lists the circumstances under which a license must and may be revoked or suspended. Nothing in there about "upon request from the licensee." One could make the argument that under the current law the chief can not legally revoke a license solely based on a request from the licensee even if he wanted to.

This would seem to be an oversight worthy of being addressed.

WTF... that sucks! Things are even worse in MA than I thought.

Perhaps another "micro bill" that gives the license holder the right to voluntarily give up their license might be a solution? That way it's out of the issuing chief's hands and it doesn't have to be reported as a revocation on future applications. Call it "a bill to reduce the number of carry permits in MA" and maybe the moonbats will support it.

I like it (except that I wish the problem was addressed in this bill).

With no expiration, couldn't your issuing agency maintain your LTC restrictions indefinitely even after you move to a different town.

I already asked GOAL that question. Waiting for answer now. I will post it when I get it.

Tomorrow, it'll be two weeks since you asked this question. How did GOAL respond?

 

[Revelationechc]

Tomorrow, it'll be two weeks since you asked this question. How did GOAL respond?

GOAL stated similar to what Mike S posted in this thread. GOAL has filed several "micro bills", each covers a different individual issue, one of which removes the restrictions.

I have concerns with the bill discussed in this thread passing and then the restrictions bill not passing. In which case, at least as I understand it (and correct me if I'm wrong), we are then stuck with our restricted licenses until more change arises from legislature/courts.

I do have some faith in GOAL, in that they will work to make sure we are not stuck with the restrictions. Perhaps a provision could be added to the delays bill that adds the restrictions bill to it.... please (read: I know that likely can't happen)

 

[Dr. CCW]

What about a micro bill saying restrictions are null and void and all licenses are unrestricted?

 

[chaser001]

What about a micro bill saying restrictions are null and void and all licenses are unrestricted?

I like the idea. Though it might be easier to pass something that leaves a term on restricted LTCs. perhaps "All restrictions on a LTC must be reviewed by the Cheif of Police, or his duly appointed official, every years. Without cause for continuing the restriction on the LTC, a new lifetime LTC shall be issued without restrictions. Any LTC issued with restritions must be accompanied by a letter from the Cheif of Police, or his duly appointed official, detailing the reason(s) for the restriction and the course of action(s) that may be taken to remove the restriction(s)"

 

[Revelationechc]

I like the idea. Though it might be easier to pass something that leaves a term on restricted LTCs. perhaps "All restrictions on a LTC must be reviewed by the Cheif of Police, or his duly appointed official, every years. Without cause for continuing the restriction on the LTC, a new lifetime LTC shall be issued without restrictions. Any LTC issued with restritions must be accompanied by a letter from the Cheif of Police, or his duly appointed official, detailing the reason(s) for the restriction and the course of action(s) that may be taken to remove the restriction(s)"

There is no valid reason for a restriction. None.

 

[JSnaxx]

You guys haven't lived until you've shot .50 BMG armor-piercing incendiary out of a full-auto General Motors-built Ma Deuce

Got to burn through a few cases of .50 sabot rounds in Afghanistan.... and recently got to watch them fire a GAU at a testing facility up in VT.. The military has it's perks.