Gov. Maura Healey pledges to push for strong gun laws in Massachusetts

[Coyote33]

"if it doesn't affect me/someone I know/a huge number of gun owners, then what's all the fuss about?" viewpoint. That's an opinion you seem to embrace. I reject it.

Never said "what's all the fuss about". It helps people in towns that were may issue or had restrictions.

Your post #277, I think, spells out your viewpoint. I think it's repugnant.

Pointing out numbers is repugnant to you?

So every person who may want to keep and bear arms has been positively effected by Bruen.
If I am incorrect and confused, please supply citations disputing my position.

No. Many people were able to keep and bear arms even before Bruen. The fact that it helps those in bad cities and towns also now do this is a great thing.

So you admit that all 351 jurisdictions transitioned from 'may issue' to 'shall issue' due to Bruen - is that not proof of positive impact for all Massachusetts residents?

There were many of those 351 which were already operating as "shall issue". That is all this is about. Adding protections for the remaining towns is a good thing, but had no impact on those already experiencing that.

 

[pastera]

Never said "what's all the fuss about". It helps people in towns that were may issue or had restrictions.




Pointing out numbers is repugnant to you?




No. Many people were able to keep and bear arms even before Bruen. The fact that it helps those in bad cities and towns also now do this is a great thing.



There were many of those 351 which were already operating as "shall issue". That is all this is about. Adding protections for the remaining towns is a good thing, but had no impact on those already experiencing that.

I guess you had no issues with "separate but equal" as long as everyone was offered some form of education and not every town that could exclude blacks actually did...

 

[Echo 225]

Law abiding citizens are not the problem!

 

[pastera]

Thanks! I can't understand the legalese - mind translating, LOL? The plantiff was convicted of crimes?

Morin v. Lyver - Commonwealth Second Amendment

Challenge to the lifetime ban on the issuance of a License to Carry to anyone convicted of a minor, non-violent misdemeanor if the offense involves a weapon or ammunition and where a term of imprisonment may be imposed. United States District Court — District of Massachusetts (Worcester) Filed...

comm2a.org

Morin ran afoul of DC carry ban when he went to a DC museum and asked to store his firearm at a museum because he mistakenly didn't realize his LTC was invalid in DC.
This resulted in two misdemeanor charges for which Mass proscribes a lifetime ban on firearms.

If you start at the oldest document you will get a good idea of the flow of the case (if you can stay awake that long since the pleadings are painstakingly dry)

For nothing else, this case is a good read for any gun owner to show that you are simply a cog in the legal wheel to be ground up indiscriminately regardless of how minor your infraction.

 

[rogersmithiii]

Breun

Here, I'll repeat it yet again: "it was a really big f'ing deal for those shit city dwellers who were affected. But for the rest of us, it was of zero consequence. That's just a fact. So I stand by the statement that Bruen, so far, has had little real effect here."

It does not say it was irrelevant. To me, it says it had "zero impact" on most. That is a truth. That does not lessen its importance overall, just putting it in perspective overall. Maybe I'm just reading it different.

Bruen will have serious, negative consequences if it causes Massachusetts to pass further restrictions like NY, NJ and California.

At present,there aren't a lot of places where carry under a permit is disallowed. Bruen might cause Massachusetts to change that reality.

Bruen means less than nothing if suddenly you can't carry near any public facility, public park, any business that doesn't specifically allow carry, schools, restaurants, bars, etc.

 

[rogersmithiii]

Law abiding citizens are not the problem!

Stop. This has nothing to do with crime, dead kids, violence or mass shootings. Those things are excuses to pass gun control.
Democrat weasels would ban all guns, and confiscate them if they could. Feinstein actually said it in an interview. Since they can't get gun bans through, they will use any excuse to chip away at the right, making it more expensive, risky, annoying and frustrating to own a gun. Chip, chip, chip, until there is no second amendment anymore.

And just remember, it's only your guns that they want. Feinstein, while screaming for gun control, had a LTC, and carried a snub nosed .38.

Party apparatchiks get special privileges in a communist society.

 

[Picton]

Pointing out numbers is repugnant to you?

I suppose it's possible you could be that bad at reading comprehension, but I prefer to believe you're just trying to make a point? Maybe?

By this time, you're what Felger and Mazz call "take-committed," meaning you've repeated the same hot take over and over so many times that you feel you can't walk it back. I get that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Bruen will have serious, negative consequences if it causes Massachusetts to pass further restrictions like NY, NJ and California.

Let 'em. Then the whole edifice comes down that much sooner.

Which is why I don't think they will.

 

[rogersmithiii]

If an anti gun bill gets passed it's going to be some other concoction from the cabal not something he authored by himself..... Linsky is basically a useful idiot to them, nothing more.

I guess you had no issues with "separate but equal" as long as everyone was offered some form of education and not every town that could exclude blacks actually did...

I don’t want to exclude blacks. Just Democrats.

 

[rogersmithiii]

I suppose it's possible you could be that bad at reading comprehension, but I prefer to believe you're just trying to make a point? Maybe?

By this time, you're what Felger and Mazz call "take-committed," meaning you've repeated the same hot take over and over so many times that you feel you can't walk it back. I get that. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.



Let 'em. Then the whole edifice comes down that much sooner.

Which is why I don't think they will.

They pass unconstitutional restrictions. Those restrictions stay in place for years, decades even, until they are overturned.

Decades is a long time to have an LTC that does not let you carry anywhere. Especially with the destruction of the criminal Justice system and the explosion in crime.

 

[rogersmithiii]

I think @Coyote33's issue stems from him only viewing the impact of Bruen's direct case law that licenses must be issued based on objective standards.
And since that singular aspect of the decision doesn't have great effect here in Mass to the majority, he doesn't see it as important as the rest of us.
The problem is that view is horribly myopic - look at what happened to license issuance in New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii. The unobtainable suddenly became possible. Yes, they passed new laws trying to bypass Bruen but those will be relatively short lived. Alito's response to the request to stay the NY law proves that SCOTUS is ready to pounce if the circuit Court drags its feet.

The direct decision in Bruen has had massive impact in places where licenses were only available to the elite and connected. It actually had effect on a quarter of the population.

Now it's time for Bruen's dicta in the TH&T standard to percolate through the circuits in other aspects of the 2A.
This is where things start to get mirky - because SCOTUS didn't clearly define exactly what is within Text, History and Tradition there will be some disagreement among the circuits. NY and Maryland have already gone FR on restrictions trying everything to see.what will be allowed. However even the antigun legal minds admit most ot NY's law has no chance of survival.

Just because an individual's personal anti-gun pet peeves haven't been rectified doesn't mean a particular decision was not monumental.

Marxists can find a myriad of ways to legally emasculate Bruen. It’s good, but not a panacea.

 

[Picton]

They pass unconstitutional restrictions. Those restrictions stay in place for years, decades even, until they are overturned.

Decades is a long time to have an LTC that does not let you carry anywhere. Especially with the destruction of the criminal Justice system and the explosion in crime.

Quit pant-shitting. "Decades?" I think not. You need to read about how quickly these cases have ALREADY been remanded in other circuits, then ask yourself what the MA legislature could possibly gain by getting smacked down here as well.

And if they do? At the end of the day, the decision is yours: obey an unjust law, or not. It's up to you.

 

[71montess]

I don't know if it's still going on, but can we stop with the bullshit back and forth ?

 

[M125X]

I don't know if it's still going on, but can we stop with the bullshit back and forth ?

This is NES. I think you know the answer.

 

[pastera]

Breun

Bruen will have serious, negative consequences if it causes Massachusetts to pass further restrictions like NY, NJ and California.

At present,there aren't a lot of places where carry under a permit is disallowed. Bruen might cause Massachusetts to change that reality.

Bruen means less than nothing if suddenly you can't carry near any public facility, public park, any business that doesn't specifically allow carry, schools, restaurants, bars, etc.

Educate yourself:

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/supreme-court-samuel-alito-clarence-thomas/2023/01/16/id/1104551/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/11/politics/supreme-court-second-amendment-guns-alito/index.html\

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

SCOTUS is properly acting within the bounds that they themselves have instituted

 

[M125X]

Quit pant-shitting. "Decades?" I think not. You need to read about how quickly these cases have ALREADY been remanded in other circuits, then ask yourself what the MA legislature could possibly gain by getting smacked down here as well.

And if they do? At the end of the day, the decision is yours: obey an unjust law, or not. It's up to you.

It’s been almost 7 years since Healy’s unconstitutional 7/20 edict. Yet still today 90% of gun owners won’t touch an AR lower that is “post Healey” and most gun shops won’t either (yes there are exceptions and yes NES mostly realizes what she did was not law) but still no one to fight it all the way and get it struck down in court yet. Just providing some food for thought.

 

[pastera]

They pass unconstitutional restrictions. Those restrictions stay in place for years, decades even, until they are overturned.

Decades is a long time to have an LTC that does not let you carry anywhere. Especially with the destruction of the criminal Justice system and the explosion in crime.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

I understand the Court’s denial today to reflect respect for the Second Circuit’s procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case. Applicants should not be deterred by today’s order from again seeking relief if the Second Circuit does not, within a reasonable time, provide an explanation for its stay order or expedite consideration of the appeal.

In other words - Sotomayor has her own reasons for denying the motion to vacate. Alito and Thomas are assuming that she wasn't doing so with prejudice but instead she is properly letting the 2nd circuit do it's own work. However, if the 2nd decides to continue to act without explanation or further delay then SCOTUS will intervene and issue a smackdown to NY and the 2nd.

It's actually better for us if the 2nd decided to FAFO with Alito and Thomas. Given Roberts insistence on keeping the courts appearance, I think he would join in the "Find Out" party to show the belligerent circuits and states that the Supreme Court is actually supreme.

 

[pastera]

Marxists can find a myriad of ways to legally emasculate Bruen. It’s good, but not a panacea.

Correct - the dicta of TH&T is so new that we don't know what will be the final impact. However, with how some of the recalcitrant circuits are already treating the new scrutiny standard it seems to be a very powerful ally to the 2nd.

 

[pastera]

It’s been almost 7 years since Healy’s unconstitutional 7/20 edict. Yet still today 90% of gun owners won’t touch an AR lower that is “post Healey” and most gun shops won’t either (yes there are exceptions and yes NES mostly realizes what she did was not law) but still no one to fight it all the way and get it struck down in court yet. Just providing some food for thought.

99% of gun owners have zero knowledge of the law past what someone heard someone else say somewhere important...
Massachusetts gun owners might be very slightly better than most but those that don't know the law are usually worst than ignorant. Their incorrect knowledge is so personally infused that they simply can't accept they might be wrong.

 

[maltc]

This should be interesting! (CCW holder in Hochuls NY saves the day while in defiance of her unconstitutional “sensitive places” law.

Customer with gun stops assailant at New Hartford Applebee's

NEW HARTFORD, N.Y.-- Police in New Hartford arrested a Utica man who allegedly tried to attack workers at Applebee's on Commercial Drive Saturday but was stopped by a customer with

www.wktv.com

 

[namedpipes]

Difference is, the notice wasn’t a law. If these laws pass you could become a felon.

In this country, if you don't have the money to pay for great legal representation, you can be convicted of a crime you not only did not commit, but is not even an actual crime on the books.

 

[M125X]

99% of gun owners have zero knowledge of the law past what someone heard someone else say somewhere important...
Massachusetts gun owners might be very slightly better than most but those that don't know the law are usually worst than ignorant. Their incorrect knowledge is so personally infused that they simply can't accept they might be wrong.

The problem is, many gun shops fear the MA AG (previously Maura) and would not defy her edict.

 

[M125X]

In this country, if you don't have the money to pay for great legal representation, you can be convicted of a crime you not only did not commit, but is not even an actual crime on the books.

Yep and that is the biggest issue here that many fail to realize. 99.9% of the population couldn’t have a long drawn out legal battle going to the SCOTUS.

 

[Picton]

Yep and that is the biggest issue here that many fail to realize. 99.9% of the population couldn’t have a long drawn out legal battle going to the SCOTUS.

In the case of the edict, they CAN'T have a long drawn out legal battle. Because Maura is too smart to actually take anyone to court over it.

THAT'S why it's not been overturned: nobody yet has been harmed by it. And nobody ever will be, either. Is there a possibility she could do something similar as governor? Maybe, or her successor as AG could. But those won't be enforced either.

I fear those kinds of edicts far, far more than I fear a wide-ranging, sweeping statute about gun control. But even then... if the edict isn't enforced? Then what do we have to fear?

 

[rali]

Sure there is. That single-shot looks JUST LIKE a Sniper Weapon of War. And that lever gun is really just a Multi-Round, Manually-Automated Sniper Bambi Killer. I think only single actions and revolving rifles may be safe.

No, no … lever action was invented to suppress Native Americans. Even showing an image of a lever action needs to be banned in order to prevent trauma

(do I even need a “/s” tag?)

 

[pastera]

Yep and that is the biggest issue here that many fail to realize. 99.9% of the population couldn’t have a long drawn out legal battle going to the SCOTUS.

Add some more 9's to that 99.9%
Cataeno not only getting to SCOTUS but prevailing there on a public defender is rarer than rainbow unicorn farts.

 

[babygorilla]

In the case of the edict, they CAN'T have a long drawn out legal battle. Because Maura is too smart to actually take anyone to court over it.

THAT'S why it's not been overturned: nobody yet has been harmed by it. And nobody ever will be, either. Is there a possibility she could do something similar as governor? Maybe, or her successor as AG could. But those won't be enforced either.

I fear those kinds of edicts far, far more than I fear a wide-ranging, sweeping statute about gun control. But even then... if the edict isn't enforced? Then what do we have to fear?

I still feel her hand should have been forced in this. A squeaky clean ffl sells an AR to a squeaky clean customer, maybe a celeb or politician or well known lawyer, publicly, on TV. Backed by GOAL and comm 2a of course.

 

[Picton]

I still feel her hand should have been forced in this. A squeaky clean ffl sells an AR to a squeaky clean customer, maybe a celeb or politician or well known lawyer, publicly, on TV. Backed by GOAL and comm 2a of course.

Plenty of FFLs DID (and still do) sell plenty of ARs to plenty of customers. Not a peep from the DAs. It's hard to "force the hand" of institutions that just aren't interested.

Unless you want to volunteer to be the guy doing the buying on TV...?

 

[babygorilla]

Plenty of FFLs DID (and still do) sell plenty of ARs to plenty of customers. Not a peep from the DAs. It's hard to "force the hand" of institutions that just aren't interested.

Unless you want to volunteer to be the guy doing the buying on TV...?

I'm not a public enough figure. It needs to be A NAME WELL KNOWN. Enough to draw the news.
I volunteered for other things that unfortunately died on the vine.

 

[Picton]

I'm not a public enough figure. It needs to be A NAME WELL KNOWN. Enough to draw the news.
I volunteered for other things that unfortunately died on the vine.

Okay. But what FFL would agree to that? Knowing that it would draw attention? Knowing half of NES would mock them and cancel them? And for no good reason at all?

I see where you're coming from. But no DA would allow their hand to be forced that way.

ETA: On top of that, the news station that participates in that is going to have trouble getting interviews with the Guv. It's a risk for them, too.

 

[Sparky1911]

True but not true at the same time. Will the ffl transfer the ar to you thru the state. No..they won’t do it. They will only do a 4473 on a non firearm(a lower).

Plenty of FFLs DID (and still do) sell plenty of ARs to plenty of customers. Not a peep from the DAs. It's hard to "force the hand" of institutions that just aren't interested.

Unless you want to volunteer to be the guy doing the buying on TV...?