Gun control rally at statehouse on Tuesday

[pastera]

How does it matter? It's another baby step towards confiscation. It's like a good stew: every ingredient by itself is lame. But once they come together and cook for a while...

Please spell out the baby step? Is it where where the chief now has to document his actions? Or that an adult can possess a spice without needing permission?

They already have everything they need to confiscate so I fail to see how we are moving closer.

 

[mahatesguns]

For the record guys, I copies the URL and it also pasted the title of the article. I know the difference between gun safety and gun control. Doh!

 

[mahatesguns]

I've been a firearms owner for 3 years. I am really new to this and before I had firearms I knew nothing about politics (still don't) but I've been interested in anything that has to do with disarming us. Even though I've tried my best to spread information on law abiding gun owners and about the 2nd amendment, I have not done half of what you guys have done. I have read people's posts on calling or mailing/emailing local politicians but what would I say? Who do I call and what would I say? I want to play my part in this!

 

[Racenet]

Unbelievable,

they should all just hold up signs that read:

"citizens for denying the rights of other citizens who have never done anything wrong simply because we can..."

"do it for the children"


that would be a good representation of their cause don't ya think?

 

[Mike S]

I've been a firearms owner for 3 years. I am really new to this and before I had firearms I knew nothing about politics (still don't) but I've been interested in anything that has to do with disarming us. Even though I've tried my best to spread information on law abiding gun owners and about the 2nd amendment, I have not done half of what you guys have done. I have read people's posts on calling or mailing/emailing local politicians but what would I say? Who do I call and what would I say? I want to play my part in this!

Right now, call your MA State Representative and ask him/her for a concurrence vote on the senate version of S.2284 - Speaker DeLeo's "gun bill". You can find contact info here: http://goal.org/legislatorinfo.html

Remember, call your State Rep, not your Rep to U.S. Congress. It's an easy one to confuse.

You can say it exactly like this:

"I would like to ask that Rep. (whoever) votes in concurrence with the Senate version of S.2284 - Speaker DeLeo's gun bill"

Thank them and hang up.

That's it. Easy.

 

[MetalgodZ]

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.

If you haven't read it, and you haven't read any summaries of it and then gone back to determine that the changes are, you need to sit down, shut up, and let the people that actually pay attention to this crap handle it. "ANY legislation regarding guns is no good?" Again, how can you intelligently support or oppose ANYTHING that you haven't read?

The ONLY thing in here that doesn't actually benefit us is the thing that mattyw is complaining about...

doesn't affect us? being treated on a separate, lower level than public servants my taxes pay for CERTAINLY affects me

...And you're already on a separate, lower level than public servants your taxes pay for. The change is nothing more than codifying an already existing exemption, and it even does a poor job of that because it does so in a way which opens the door for a lawsuit that didn't exist before.

Even if you're too lazy or stupid to attempt to parse this, the fact that Rosenthal and the MCOPA are protesting this should be a fairly strong indicator.

 

[hv55maxx]

I've been a firearms owner for 3 years. I am really new to this and before I had firearms I knew nothing about politics (still don't) but I've been interested in anything that has to do with disarming us. Even though I've tried my best to spread information on law abiding gun owners and about the 2nd amendment, I have not done half of what you guys have done. I have read people's posts on calling or mailing/emailing local politicians but what would I say? Who do I call and what would I say? I want to play my part in this!

Thank you for your previous correspondence. As I have mentioned to you it is extremely important that suitability be kept away from the FID issuance. I urge you to vote in support of concurrence with the Senate bill 2284 returning to the House.

This has been a great compromise in the interests of public safety and of civil rights.

For Firearms owners this bill will:

• This bill will legalize pepper spray for anyone over 18.
• Will keep the status quo on issuing FID cards
• Will end license issuing delays for LTC/FID holders
• Will streamline the LTC licensing process
• Will improve school safety via school resource officers

For the interest of public safety this bill will:

• Ensure Universal Background Checks
• Ensures that MA background check information goes to NICS
• Offers resources for mental health aid
• Offers resources to prevent suicide
• Provides protection of our children in schools

This bill offers a lot for both sides of the debate. I would ask you to refrain from reinstating the discretion on FID cards as I would be very interested to know how many crimes are committed that denying an FID card to someone may have prevented a tragedy.

 

[LoginName]

I'm actually hoping this makes the news just so I can find out what other BS came out of their mouths...

STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

POLICE PRESS FOR DISCRETION OVER GUN LICENSES

Police officials turned out on Beacon Hill Tuesday morning to call on lawmakers to extend to shotguns and rifles the discretion police chiefs currently possess over the awarding of handgun licenses in Massachusetts. "It's not about being capricious and arbitrary and taking away people's rights," chief Erik Blake, president of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, said during a press conference at the Grand Staircase where he was joined by former Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis. Police gathered after the Senate opted against extending the licensing authority, a provision adopted by the House. Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, attended the press conference and afterwards questioned the number of individuals who have passed background checks and received FID cards and gone on to commit violent crimes. "Is this a real problem, or is this a perceived problem?" Wallace told the News Service, alleging that police chiefs have "abused that authority" to determine suitability for gun licensing

http://www.nashobapublishing.com/ci_26193933/rmv-back-normal-after-system-falters

 

[oldsoldier29]

It IS about taking away rights. Or, more accurately, about selecting who can, and cannot, exercise a right.

 

[Rekonn]

Thank you for your previous correspondence. As I have mentioned to you it is extremely important that suitability be kept away from the FID issuance. I urge you to vote in support of concurrence with the Senate bill 2284 returning to the House.

This has been a great compromise in the interests of public safety and of civil rights.

For Firearms owners this bill will:

• This bill will legalize pepper spray for anyone over 18.
• Will keep the status quo on issuing FID cards
• Will end license issuing delays for LTC/FID holders
• Will streamline the LTC licensing process
• Will improve school safety via school resource officers

For the interest of public safety this bill will:

• Ensure Universal Background Checks
• Ensures that MA background check information goes to NICS
• Offers resources for mental health aid
• Offers resources to prevent suicide
• Provides protection of our children in schools

This bill offers a lot for both sides of the debate. I would ask you to refrain from reinstating the discretion on FID cards as I would be very interested to know how many crimes are committed that denying an FID card to someone may have prevented a tragedy.

Great message, I'm considering starting another delivery thread using 99% of this as the template message. Think we have enough time before the concurrence vote/committee decision for an end of day dropoff to be worthwhile?

 

[hv55maxx]

Great message, I'm considering starting another delivery thread using 99% of this as the template message. Think we have enough time before the concurrence vote/committee decision for an end of day dropoff to be worthwhile?

probably worth a shot, my underlying premise was basically "look we didnt get screwed and you can say you did something so suck it up and take it"

 

[Hoover]

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.

I was seething with anger at that remark especially. If he were anywhere near me at the time, I'd need a new tv because mine would be working it's way through his digestive system after I rammed it down his throat.

He literally doesn't know a thing, not a single thing about guns or the laws yet gets on there and makes up sh!t non stop. Remember when the house was debating this a few weeks ago he said who needs a gun 'that can fire 700 bullets a second'. That's not a typo, he said 700 per second. He is a huge statist too. He has such a love for Deleo and last week on their trip to Natick, he was drooling over Linsky.

 

[Horrible]

It IS about taking away rights. Or, more accurately, about selecting who can, and cannot, exercise a right.

THIS. It ALWAYS has been. Gun Control is NOT about guns, its about CONTROL. Some of the first vestiges of gun control in this country were part of the Jim Crow laws down south. Guess why? Had to keep control of the freed slaves.

 

[EJFudd]

I was seething with anger at that remark especially. If he were anywhere near me at the time, I'd need a new tv because mine would be working it's way through his digestive system after I rammed it down his throat.

He literally doesn't know a thing, not a single thing about guns or the laws yet gets on there and makes up sh!t non stop. Remember when the house was debating this a few weeks ago he said who needs a gun 'that can fire 700 bullets a second'. That's not a typo, he said 700 per second. He is a huge statist too. He has such a love for Deleo and last week on their trip to Natick, he was drooling over Linsky.

The media, television especially, does strange things to people. Years ago on radio, he was just a funny, fat sidekick to Howie. Now, on TV, his self-importance has slowly swelled to something bigger than his head. He has slowly morphed into just another stupid air-time filling media moonbat ready to agree with any liberal or big government "personality" that walks in the door. Very sad indeed.

 

[yanici]

VB was an ******* on Howie's show and he was treated that way. He's still a stupid *******. He doesn't fool anyone.

The ******* represent a**hole.

 

[mattyw]

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.

the law that exists allows AWB non compliant firearms to be used by officers for Law Enforcement purposes

the new, proposed law strips it of "for law enforcement purposes", now they can use them at the range, keep them forever, possess as many post-ban 30 round mags as they want, even after retirement, for any reason they want.

at least currently they are limited to legally using it only for their job and not every day common-folk things like you and me

 

[Whutmeworry]

Great message, I'm considering starting another delivery thread using 99% of this as the template message. Think we have enough time before the concurrence vote/committee decision for an end of day dropoff to be worthwhile?

I'm in! I'll PM you using the template in your post ASAP.

 

[92G]

the law that exists allows AWB non compliant firearms to be used by officers for Law Enforcement purposes

the new, proposed law strips it of "for law enforcement purposes", now they can use them at the range, keep them forever, possess as many post-ban 30 round mags as they want, even after retirement, for any reason they want.

at least currently they are limited to legally using it only for their job and not every day common-folk things like you and me

the message I am hearing is that none of this proposed legislation was accidental....this is all part of a grand plan to slowly create two classes: the "special" protected ones (e.g. politicians, LEOs, .gov) and the rest of us to whom the law actually applies.

the notion that ANY law can be applied to certain people and not others makes absolutely no sense.....how is that even constitutional? how ****ing blind must someone be to not see the hypocrisy in applying an AWB to the taxpayers and not .gov.....WTF????

 

[Triumph13]

Do Police Chiefs actually have any input in the licensing process besides rubber stamping something? I'm being serious....I have been licensed in two different towns, Burlington and Sturbridge and never once did I see or ever meet the Police Chief...do certain towns do it?

 

[Whutmeworry]

Right now, call your MA State Representative and ask him/her for a concurrence vote on the senate version of S.2284 - Speaker DeLeo's "gun bill". You can find contact info here: http://goal.org/legislatorinfo.html

Remember, call your State Rep, not your Rep to U.S. Congress. It's an easy one to confuse.

You can say it exactly like this:

"I would like to ask that Rep. (whoever) votes in concurrence with the Senate version of S.2284 - Speaker DeLeo's gun bill"

Thank them and hang up.

That's it. Easy.

Also, call Speaker DeLeo's office as well (because he is the house speaker) and tell whoever answers the phone the exact same thing as above.

 

[MetalgodZ]

the law that exists allows AWB non compliant firearms to be used by officers for Law Enforcement purposes

the new, proposed law strips it of "for law enforcement purposes", now they can use them at the range, keep them forever, possess as many post-ban 30 round mags as they want, even after retirement, for any reason they want.

at least currently they are limited to legally using it only for their job and not every day common-folk things like you and me

No, the current law is ambiguous, and does not specify "for law enforcement purposes." The hand-wringing folks at the AG's office wrote an official letter "pleasantly reminding" gun shops and chiefs that their interpretation is that personal ownership/use is illegal.

They also feel that, against all other case law, sales of ammunition that occur out of state to MA residents in their opinion occur IN STATE, requiring the vendor to have a MA permit to sell ammunition. And at least one candidate for the office feels that even without the codification of it into law, the AG's list would allow them to ban the sale of everything other than "smart guns."

The law changes nothing.

(An aside - I'm all for all sorts of rank and file LEOs receiving anything they want to get their hands on. Just means it's easier for us to get OUR hands on.)

Do Police Chiefs actually have any input in the licensing process besides rubber stamping something? I'm being serious....I have been licensed in two different towns, Burlington and Sturbridge and never once did I see or ever meet the Police Chief...do certain towns do it?

Yes, many do.

the message I am hearing is that none of this proposed legislation was accidental....this is all part of a grand plan to slowly create two classes: the "special" protected ones (e.g. politicians, LEOs, .gov) and the rest of us to whom the law actually applies.

the notion that ANY law can be applied to certain people and not others makes absolutely no sense.....how is that even constitutional? how ****ing blind must someone be to not see the hypocrisy in applying an AWB to the taxpayers and not .gov.....WTF????

Yep. Now, two things... 1) If there's actually an "R" in RKBA, do you think this will stand? 2) If there's no "R", does it matter?

Also, call Speaker DeLeo's office as well (because he is the house speaker) and tell whoever answers the phone the exact same thing as above.

DO THIS.

 

[hv55maxx]

mariano - 617-722-2300
peterson - 617-722-2100
bradley - 617-722-2520

deleo - 617-722-2500

call call call

 

[mattyw]

No, the current law is ambiguous, and does not specify "for law enforcement purposes."

sorry but you are flat out wrong,

"SECTION _. Section 131M of chapter 140 of the 2012 official edition of the General Laws is hereby amended, in line 12, by striking out the words:- 'for purposes of law enforcement'"

that is the amendment that was adopted....

 

[92G]

sorry but you are flat out wrong,


that is the amendment that was adopted....

as annoying as the selective AWB law will be, you gotta admit they could make for some quite colorful protesting signs....

"police have assault weapons at their homes, but you cannot" or
"police defend their families with assault weapons, but you cannot"

maybe now we can throw the "assault weapon" bullshit back their way.

 

[mattyw]

as annoying as the selective AWB law will be, you gotta admit they could make for some quite colorful protesting signs....

"police have assault weapons at their homes, but you cannot" or
"police defend their families with assault weapons, but you cannot"

maybe now we can throw the "assault weapon" bullshit back their way.

only does good for people already with your cause, most moonbats believe only police should have guns, so certainly they think only police should have scary killy assault weapons

 

[drgrant]

None of this AWB crap really matters. much when it comes down to bones. Do you guys think they are going to care one way or the other? "OH DEY ARE KOPZ ITS OK IF THEY HAVE ASSHAULT WEPINS! I TWUST DA POWEECE AND DUH MILLUTARY!" etc, etc, ad nauseam. Changing the law one way or the other isn't going to make it enforced any more or less than it already is (unless you go for an outright full on repeal) so its mostly just window dressing/feel good stuff we're talking about here.

-Mike

 

[MetalgodZ]

sorry but you are flat out wrong,


that is the amendment that was adopted....

Define "law enforcement purposes," or show me where in the law "law enforcement purposes" is defined.

To the guy who wants to play with range toys on his off-duty hours, "law enforcement purposes" is practice for qualifying. To the AG it's not. The amendment is clarification.

 

[mattyw]

Define "law enforcement purposes," or show me where in the law "law enforcement purposes" is defined.

To the guy who wants to play with range toys on his off-duty hours, "law enforcement purposes" is practice for qualifying. To the AG it's not. The amendment is clarification.

no, removing a phrase from a law is not clarification, it is broadening, instead of defining law enforcement purposes they choose to just have it not applicable to any LE, current or retired.
there was no definition so the AG assumed what any reasonable person would, that LE purposes means something job related, not on your personal time. That seems to be acceptable to me, I can live with that, I can't accept no restrictions on current or past LE at all when I am restricted to what I can possess. Not sure why anyone finds that acceptable

that is not just "clarification", that is treating anyone who has ever been in LE different than anyone who hasn't.

explain to me why this shouldn't upset me, because I will admit, I am outraged about it

 

[drgrant]

no, removing a phrase from a law is not clarification, it is broadening, instead of defining law enforcement purposes they choose to just have it not applicable to any LE, current or retired.
there was no definition so the AG assumed what any reasonable person would, that LE purposes means something job related, not on your personal time. That seems to be acceptable to me, I can live with that, I can't accept no restrictions on current or past LE at all when I am restricted to what I can possess. Not sure why anyone finds that acceptable

To get down to it the AWB itself isn't acceptable to me at all, and an LE exemption is "annoying", but once you've crossed that threshold it doesn't matter much what the "degree" is. This nostrum of "performing duties" or "on duty" etc, is a very nebulous one, at best. Any command brass type can essentially write one of his guys a blank check on this with a stroke of a pen. "Oh officer so and so needs to keep his "so called assault weapon" at home so that he can participate in an on call fashion for emergencies that may arise, blah blah blah." In other words the existence of the constraint is somewhat meaningless when it comes down to it.

-Mike

 

[MetalgodZ]

To get down to it the AWB itself isn't acceptable to me at all, and an LE exemption is "annoying", but once you've crossed that threshold it doesn't matter much what the "degree" is. This nostrum of "performing duties" or "on duty" etc, is a very nebulous one, at best. Any command brass type can essentially write one of his guys a blank check on this with a stroke of a pen. "Oh officer so and so needs to keep his "so called assault weapon" at home so that he can participate in an on call fashion for emergencies that may arise, blah blah blah." In other words the existence of the constraint is somewhat meaningless when it comes down to it.

-Mike

This.

And you should be outraged by it. But you should also look at the rest of what's going on with the bill, and if you've got any sense of how the majority of your neighbors vote, you should realize that the stuff that's being rolled back by this are well more than the one thing that you're seeing as a broadening of an exemption when it's doing nothing that isn't done now already.