"high cap" mags in MA ban "An Act to close the assault weapon magazine loophole"

What a subjective, biased, agenda-driven, spiteful, elitist, anti-constitutional, "legislator". He needs to really reassess his agenda, and start helping to preserve the Constitution and the rights and welfare of his constituency. I'm attempting to be articulate and non-inflammatory.

Then again, maybe he's just an arse.....
 
Like all other Linsky bills, this one will get him media coverage and a re-election, but will go nowhere . . . but we still need to stay vigilant.

Sadly there would be no compensation if such a bill were to pass. In CA they did the same sort of things and the courts held that since you could sell them outside CA, there was no "taking" (which would require reimbursement - the gov't sets the rates, not us). The courts in MA would go along with the CA precedent, that you could bet on.

In that case I will be opening a high capacity for 10 round "swap shop" on the NH/MA border.
Does this language also cover the "preban" hicap Glock mags that people routinely shell out $75 for?
 
Carry whatever the hell you want. Call it "civil disobedience" and tell the tyrants to chock on it.
 
Like all other Linsky bills, this one will get him media coverage and a re-election, but will go nowhere . . . but we still need to stay vigilant.

Sadly there would be no compensation if such a bill were to pass. In CA they did the same sort of things and the courts held that since you could sell them outside CA, there was no "taking" (which would require reimbursement - the gov't sets the rates, not us). The courts in MA would go along with the CA precedent, that you could bet on.

This is, afterall, MA. Fight all this low-lifes like Linsky
 
Oh and just in case anyone might be thinking "no way in hell could such an obviously unconstitutional law ever get passed," check this out:

https://ballotpedia.org/California_...Large-Capacity_Ammunition_Magazine_Ban_(2016)
Requirements to buy ammo
Proposition 63 was designed to require individuals who wish to purchase ammunition to first obtain a four-year permit from the California Department of Justice. The measure required dealers to check this permit before selling ammunition.[1] California enacted legislation in July 2016 that repealed this provision and instead mandated dealers to check with the Department of Justice to determine if the buyer is authorized to purchase.

Licenses to sell ammo
In July 2016, California enacted legislation to regulate the sale of ammunition. The legislation required individuals and businesses to obtain a one-year license from the California Department of Justice to sell ammunition. Hunters selling 50 rounds or less of ammunition per month for hunting trips were not required to obtain a license.

Proposition 63 established a misdemeanor penalty for failing to follow these dealer licensing requirements.

Large-capacity magazines
California banned large-capacity magazines for most individuals in 2000. Individuals who had large-capacity magazines before 2000 were allowed to keep the magazines. Proposition 63 removed the ownership exemption for pre-2000 owners of large-capacity magazines. The measure provided for charging Individuals who do not comply with it with an infraction.


Court removal of firearms
Proposition 63 enacted a court process that attempts to ensure prohibited individuals do not continue to have firearms. The measure required courts to inform individuals prohibited from owning a firearm that they must turn their firearms over to local law enforcement, sell their firearms to a licensed dealer, or give their firearms to a dealer for storage. Proposition 63 also required probation officers to check and report on what prohibited individuals did with their firearms.

Out-of-state purchases
Starting in July 2019, the July 2016 legislation would have prohibited most California residents from purchasing ammunition outside the state and bringing it into the state without first having it delivered to a licensed dealer. Proposition 63 moved up the start date of this law to January 2018. It also made bringing out-of-state ammunition into the state without first delivering it to a dealer an infraction.

Reporting theft
The measure required dealers of ammunition to report a theft or loss within 48 hours. It required individuals to report a theft or loss within five days to local law enforcement. Failure to report was considered an infraction under the initiative.

Penalty for theft
Proposition 47 of 2014 made stealing an item that is valued at less than $950 a misdemeanor. Therefore, stealing a gun valued at less than $950 was a misdemeanor.

Proposition 63 made stealing a gun, including one valued at less than $950, a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.​

It was voted on as a ballot initiative and passed 63% to 37%.
 
Guess what?

Cleaning up a pile of random papers, I just found HD2678 that was filed on 1/18/2013 by David Linsky, different title but same sort of garbage. This one would have banned ALL large capacity long guns. I just deposited it in the appropriate file . . . circular!

He files this garbage every legislative session.
 
This is the attitude that gets us no where !
I agree it gets us nowhere, but changing the attitute will not change the reality of the situation we face.

Remember Cheryl "I do not want or seek votes from GOAL members" Jacques. Exactly what problem did we cause with her perpetual re-election.

Karen Spilka was right when she told me "the Democratic primary is the real election, as that determines who wins the general" (referring to the state house of rep election)
 
He files this garbage every legislative session.

If at first you don't succeed....

If we all moved to a "free state" instead, we wouldn't have to put up with this nonsense. [banana]

It's generally not a good idea to ignore cancer. Sometimes it grows.

Karen Spilka was right when she told me "the Democratic primary is the real election, as that determines who wins the general" (referring to the state house of rep election)

So run a as a Democrat.
 
This is the attitude that gets us no where !

Rob is right though, many of these elections are rigged and/or wired for sound. Linstain, Creem, et al, are all in hard
core moonbat districts. The seats west of the loops and armpit are probably far more vulnerable.

-Mike
 
Rob is right though, many of these elections are rigged and/or wired for sound. Linstain, Creem, et al, are all in hard
core moonbat districts. The seats west of the loops and armpit are probably far more vulnerable.

-Mike
Trump will never win
 
More of the same every session. This bill won't go anywhere as usual. There are two pending lawsuits challenging either the AWB or AG Healey's revised interpretation. The legislature typically does not act on legislation that would affect on-going litigation. They will wait until the courts figure out the issues before it.

That means that Creem's bill and Linkskey bill won't go anywhere. There's also a Taser bill on Beacon Hill and that won't go anywhere either.
 
If at first you don't succeed....



It's generally not a good idea to ignore cancer. Sometimes it grows.



So run a as a Democrat.

All of this is incredibly true. I see this with overrides in my town for stupid shit like a new library and 20% increases in the school budget. If it doesn't pass, they just issue it again and again year after year and change some rules to exempt certain groups (Seniors) to get them on board.

- - - Updated - - -

More of the same every session. This bill won't go anywhere as usual. There are two pending lawsuits challenging either the AWB or AG Healey's revised interpretation. The legislature typically does not act on legislation that would affect on-going litigation. They will wait until the courts figure out the issues before it.

That means that Creem's bill and Linkskey bill won't go anywhere. There's also a Taser bill on Beacon Hill and that won't go anywhere either.

Same with Humason's bill?
 
I still find it odd how everyone still worries about complying with the laws anymore.

Just treat me like an illegal or someone that didn't 'intend' to break the law, but made poor decisions; and no jury would convict anyway.
 
I still find it odd how everyone still worries about complying with the laws anymore.

Agreed. At this point, by executive decree (and no action on my part) I am such a dangerous criminal that if the police ever enter my house I will likely spend the rest of my life in jail, or at least bankrupt myself to remain free.

So why bother f***ing trying.
 
Announcing that you don't give a **** about complying with the law online is not a good strategy to continue getting away with anything.

That's probably why more people who post here are the type that want to remain compliant.
 
Back
Top Bottom