I hope the sprinklers go off while they are protesting, most of 'em need a good shower.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Gun control rally at statehouse on Tuesday
- Thread starter mahatesguns
- Start date
When I get a smartphone, I'm definitely setting up a UStream account for times like this.
Wish I could get there and counter-rally.
Wish I could get there and counter-rally.
StevieP
NES Member
What don't you like? What could we have done better (in this state)? I don't really see law-abiding gun owners "losing" much of anything with this bill. But then I haven't read it in its entirety. What are we missing?
I especially liked his comment about how the Senate changes in the Bill will allow people to simply purchase an FID card. One doesn't need to hear much come out of VB's mouth to conclude he operates the mind of a moonbat. No matter the subject, all of his opinions are based on "I think..." or "I feel..." His mind is totally biased towards emotion based reasoning at the expense of facts. I just can't tell if his dumb, too lazy to learn the facts about gun licensing, or if he is being willfully ignorant and just plain cynical and deceitful.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 602
- Likes
- 352
If the House votes for Concurrence, did anyone ever really believe that the Gov was going to sign the current version into law?
He will make far more political headlines for himself by saying he is personally standing up to the NRA and not signing it.
He knows full well that will leave Firearm owners still stuck under the foot of the current crap laws, not to mention the AG's office.
If there is not a vote for Concurrence, and the committee adds back one of his BS anti-gun wishes (One A Month or COP Unsuitability), maybe he will use the opportunity to make a small gain for Anti movement. Maybe.
I'll believe it when I see it. Now going back to calling reps.
He will make far more political headlines for himself by saying he is personally standing up to the NRA and not signing it.
He knows full well that will leave Firearm owners still stuck under the foot of the current crap laws, not to mention the AG's office.
If there is not a vote for Concurrence, and the committee adds back one of his BS anti-gun wishes (One A Month or COP Unsuitability), maybe he will use the opportunity to make a small gain for Anti movement. Maybe.
I'll believe it when I see it. Now going back to calling reps.
StevieP
NES Member
One A Month was never in the original bill (H.4121) and so cannot be "added back in" now. If it was never IN, and then taken OUT, it can't be put back IN. Nor can they add any other new amendments at this point in the process.
Honestly, that's not an answer. Do you think that, somehow, we would be getting rid of all the horrible laws in this state? This is what gets me. People here who think that ANY bill that comes out, is us losing. A bill is coming. We've changed it from negatively affecting gun owners, to something that doesn't affect us at all. what did people honestly expect here? This is massachusetts. Our conservatives are more liberal than most other states.
They did a pretty good job keeping the time of the rally hush-hush from the public.
I scoured all their FaceBook and home websites (didn't check Twitter), and didn't even see any mention of the rally.
I'm taking that as a sign that MAIG is against any may issue FID's.
I scoured all their FaceBook and home websites (didn't check Twitter), and didn't even see any mention of the rally.
I'm taking that as a sign that MAIG is against any may issue FID's.
I agree with this. I am happy the bill got to where it is from what it was, and I have spoken to my rep and senator about it nonstop, but that doesn't mean I support it. I still hope it dies completely, anything the government fails at it good
Well, if that's not an answer, then what is? ANY new law regarding guns is a loss. Anything people do to alter said law in our favor is just damage control. Even if the damage is minimal, like in this case, it still doesn't help to call minimal damage a "win". It's called "letting your guard down", and that can get you knocked the fugg out like nobody's business.
But, there's none regarding guns here. The AWB suitability cleans up the existing LEO laws. That doesn't affect us. The FID issue is the ONLY issue that affects gun owners-and currently isn't part of the bill. So, what part are you referring to?
EJFudd
NES Member
Should anyone be surprised that leftist, big city cops want total control over everything?
Mike S
NES Member
Photo from the "Rally" which is nothing but a presser for the MSM.
Note, there isn't a SINGLE MA Legislator standing with the CLEO's and anti freedom groups.
- - - Updated - - -
So, what is YOUR solution?
Me, I'm all for having laws that mirror VT, we're not going to go from where we are, to where we want to be in one step though, look how long it's taken to get pepper spray permitting removed and that's STILL not done.
Note, there isn't a SINGLE MA Legislator standing with the CLEO's and anti freedom groups.
- - - Updated - - -
So, what is YOUR solution?
Me, I'm all for having laws that mirror VT, we're not going to go from where we are, to where we want to be in one step though, look how long it's taken to get pepper spray permitting removed and that's STILL not done.
StevieP
NES Member
from GOAL:
The original bill would have criminalized private sales of firearms between licensed individuals. This section was struck and private sales remain legal.
The original bill would have applied a “suitability” clause to the issuance of FID cards. This was defeated and FID cards are still “shall issue”.
The original bill would have made an FID applicant list a “reason” for applying. This was struck from the legislation.
The original bill would have given the licensing authority the ability to place restrictions on FID cards. This was struck from the legislation.
We were successful in modifying the age limit for applying for FID cards so that 14 year olds can apply.
We were successful in streamlining LTC licenses to one license, going forward there will be no more LTC “B” licenses.
We were successful in fixing the 90 day grace period issue. Going forward the licensing authority will issue a receipt upon renewal. This receipt will validate the license for all lawful purposes until the new license is received.
We were able to add language which requires that a licensing authority who denies the issuance of an LTC to an individual because of “unsuitability” be required to list the reason(s) in a letter of denial.
We were successful in clarifying language, which applies to junior training.
We were successful in ensuring that the application of the NICS process uses the federal definitions.
The original bill had very onerous language regarding confiscated/seized firearms. We were successful in getting that removed.
We were successful in ensuring that School Resource Officers were provided protection under C269 10j
We were successful in adding the term “prohibited person” to the license issuing language in C140 s131 & s129B. This legal definition clarifies who should not be licensed and places the burden of proof for denial upon the licensing authority.
The original bill would have granted even more power to the MA Chiefs of Police and EOPSS to determine what unsuitability is. We were successful in removing this language
We ensured that the definition of prohibited person would not include people who sought voluntary treatment for substance abuse, alcohol, or mental health issues.
We were successful in legalizing the purchase and possession of self defense sprays for anyone over 18 years of age.
We were successful in striking the language which would have given the MA Attorney General unprecedented power over which firearms can be purchased in MA. (EOPSS list)
We were successful in striking the language which would have given the Colonel of the State Police power to define the primer for firearms safety training programs.
The original bill had language which would have forced hunters safety courses and firearms safety courses to include a module on suicide prevention. This was amended so that the state will now provide hand out materials for the teachers.
We were successful in creating a criminal firearms trafficking division to help combat illegal sales.
We were successful in including language which requires the Colonel of the State Police to offer Public Service Announcements on firearms safety, storage, transportation, education, etc.
We were successful in adding language giving active duty servicemen a 180 day grace period to get an LTC/FID.
The original bill had a poorly written section regarding increased penalties for carrying while intoxicated. We were successful in getting this removed as the definition of intoxicated was too vague.
With thanks to some of our members who put in extra effort on the issue, we were able to add language which would allow “off the list” transfers of C&R firearms by 01 FFL’s.
frenchman - please be specific. What's left in the bill that's "bad" for licensed gun owners in MA? If there's something left in the bill that I should object to, I'll call my rep (again) today and ask about it. Seriously. What more could we have possibly asked for (in this state)? The AWB, LTC suitability, and "the list" aren't going away (yet). What's left in this bill that's so egregious?
I haven't read the bill. My English is most likely not sufficient to fully comprehend a legislative document and identify twists and turns. At least not yet. Again:ANY legislation regarding guns is no good. The existing laws are too much already. The only way to chalk up a "win" for the gunowner community would be to get rid of some of the existing laws. Anything but that is a loss, as small as it might be.
They are done asking for an inch and taking a mile. Now, they are asking for 1/32 of an inch, and take a foot. It still gets them closer to their ultimate goal of complete ban. They just changed the pace, not the objective.
They are done asking for an inch and taking a mile. Now, they are asking for 1/32 of an inch, and take a foot. It still gets them closer to their ultimate goal of complete ban. They just changed the pace, not the objective.
This!
StevieP
NES Member
I think this is a foot in the door to get the AWB removed in the courts. There should be no "classes" when it comes to who can own what. Why should "they" get collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and new 30-round mags, when we can't? I think Comm2A is chomping at the bit to see that get passed.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2013
- Messages
- 602
- Likes
- 352
Good call StevieP.
Sorry for being pessimistic, but if these a-holes are rallying against the current pile of BS, they will settle for nothing less than further restrictions.
I just see the Gov eyeballing political hay, and making "a courageous stand" against the super-evil NRA and all their minions - you know upstanding citizens who believe in exercising their natural born Rights.
EJFudd
NES Member
You noticed that too.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Welcome to one-party, leftist-controlled Massachusetts.
Ahhh, but it DOES get rid of some of the existing laws, mon ami.
It redefines the current laws. Maybe I was misunderstood. I agree 100% it's creating 2 separate classes. But, it's not granting them anything more than they have now. It just clarifies the current laws.
That being said, I agree, and most officers I either work with or have talked to also agree with you. I'm not defending the proposal-merely stating that it doesn't affect us as it is, as this law already exists. I misunderstood it at first too.
