I'd have to agree with Mike. The bill, although far from ideal, has some good silver linings. I think it wise to celebrate even the small victories.
-
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.
House Review of S2284 (formerly SB 2265)
- Thread starter Squire
- Start date
- Status
I'd have to agree with Mike. The bill, although far from ideal, has some good silver linings. I think it wise to celebrate even the small victories.
Ask our neighbors to the west and south how this turned out for us.
Horrible
NES Member
Their side has NO logic what-so-ever. Never has, never will. But the braindead sheep in this state continue to buy this bullcrap w/o thinking it through and elect equally brain-dead pols to represent them. And here we are today.
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
Quick question
The Herald is reporting that FTF now requires background checks, is that the new web portal?
The Herald is reporting that FTF now requires background checks, is that the new web portal?
Quiet
Banned
The Herald is wrong.
Linsky still squats to pee. Guy is such a gaping vag.
Friday
NES Member
So, I assume the EOPS list, and the AG list (that doesn't exist) are status quo?
I'd imagine there are more FID's issued than class B licenses. These folks might have a rude awakening when they go to renew their permits
Friday
NES Member
I'm sure some chiefs will see this as a way to delay doing anything with an FID application for 90 days.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2005
- Messages
- 443
- Likes
- 49
I wonder if this will be a media type signing by Patrick with the three stooges (Linksky, Creem, and Rosenthal) standing behind him. This will tell is how truly "disappointed" the antis are.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
******
I agree. Some folks here don't seem to comprehend the politics and attitude toward guns and gun owners in this State. Anytime we prevent an anti-gun bill/law from being passed is a win for our side. The anti's will spin this bill as being a victory for them but we know we headed off a much more anti-gun restrictive bill from going forward. Is it perfect? Hell no but considering the politics in this State it's as good as we could expect. Now we let Comm2A do it's job.
******
I agree derek but we live in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. We are heavily outnumbered and liberal anti-gun Dems control this State.
And I think the really positive part of it was that these small victories came because of us. Regular people, whether GOAL members or NES members or just plain-old 2A advocates, we showed up at public hearings and stayed there for hours and hours. We closed down Gardner Auditorium at 9pm for the committee's public hearing, hours and hours after the last anti had left the building. We wrote letters and lit up the phone lines of the statehouse for months. We made a difference.
I tend to trust politicians as much as used car salesmen. But look at the kind of stuff Linsky and Patrick wanted, really really wanted. They wanted 1 gun a month, they wanted 7 round limits, they wanted "store your guns at a gun club". Those weren't their bluffs to be made so that they could get FID suitability, those guys would have rammed that stuff through if they could have.
Several legislators stepped up and did the right thing - people who aren't "on our side" nevertheless listened to the facts and made pretty much good decisions. Enough Senators heard us that the Senate stripped out FID suitability from their bill. Some of the Committee Members on Public Safety and Homeland Security actually have their shit together. Sen. Timilty actually was attentive and listened to what I had to say at 9pm after something like 10 hours of testimony. He then worked with an NES member to have an amendment about C&R included! That's freaking amazing!
Good read
Why Gun Owners Are Right to Fight Against Gun Control
In April, the Senate rejected the Toomey-Manchin gun control proposal. In the wake of its defeat many asked why gun owners and their organizations resisted so limited a measure. Granted, it would have had little but symbolic benefit. Its core was to require background checks at gun shows (which Bureau of Justice Statistics concluded involved a whole 0.8 percent of crime guns) and on Internet gun sales (a miniscule proportion, most of which probably go through licensed dealers anyway). But why not accept something so modest, in light of the draconian ideas then being floated as alternatives
Understanding the rejection requires understanding gun owners’ shared experiences. Compromise requires that both parties relinquish something. If your counterpart’s position is “give me this now, and I’ll take the rest later,” there is no real compromise to be had. Over decades, that has been precisely the experience of American gun owners.
Back in 1976, Pete Shields, chairman of what is today the Brady Campaign, candidly laid out the blueprint for The New Yorker:
We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.
The group’s first target was “Saturday Night Specials,” inexpensive small revolvers, alleged to be criminals’ preferred gun. When that approach gained traction, Shields shifted to a larger target, claim that criminals were now using “expensive, but small pistols,” so all small pistols had to be banned. “Concealability is the key,” he now explained.
As the years passed, it became apparent that this was going nowhere; a different first “slice” would have to be found. In 1990, Violence Policy Center (VPC) announced that it had found it. The debate must be switched from small handguns to large “assault rifles.”
Handguns, VPC explained, had become a media and political nonissue, while calls to outlaw “assault rifles” would benefit from mistaken impressions, i.e., “the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun.” That rifles of all types were involved in about 300 homicides a year was beside the point. The search was for a target of opportunity, not a solution to crime.
The major gun control organizations bought the idea, to the point of changing their names to replace “handgun” with “gun.” Pete Shields’ group, Handgun Control, Inc., became the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns became the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence.
The change underscored a lesson gun owners had already learned. Their opponents would go for any target of opportunity—if handgun restrictions didn’t fly, try to restrict rifles—and use that as a foundation to take more in the future. Any “reasonable compromise” would simply be a first step in a long campaign to make firearm ownership as difficult, expensive, and legally risky as possible.
Take the example of California. There, 1920s legislation required a permit for concealed carry of a firearm, required dealers to report handgun sales to the state, and imposed a one-day waiting period for handgun sales.
The one-day wait was meant to impede “crimes of passion,” but in 1955 it was increased to three days, in 1965 to five days, and in 1975 to 10 days.
Open carry of a firearm was initially allowed. In 1967, open carrying of loaded guns was prohibited. In recent years, open carrying even of unloaded guns was forbidden in incorporated areas. The mere sight of an unloaded gun was apparently too much for the California legislature to tolerate.
In 2001, dealers were forbidden to sell handguns that were not approved by the government, after rigorous laboratory testing, funded by the manufacturer. Every slight variation, even changes in color or finish, required a new certification. The tests actually had nothing to do with reliability or safety, as evidenced by the exemption of law enforcement firearms from them.
Along the way, the state banned “assault weapons,” magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and private gun sales that didn’t go through dealers. In 1999, “one gun a month” was enacted, for no discernible reason (why would a gun runner pick the most tightly regulated state in the West as his source?)
Today, the weapons regulation portion of the California Penal Code Annotated spans over 1,050 pages, yet at last count 68 more gun control measures are pending in the legislature. No matter how much the advocates of gun control get, it will never be enough. Or try New Jersey, which requires a license to own guns, plus a separate permit for each handgun. Carrying open or concealed is in practice forbidden (the legal standard for a permit is “urgent necessity”), carrying of hollow-point bullets is subject to complex rules, and magazines are limited to 15 rounds.
That’s not enough, apparently, since the New Jersey legislature is considering bills to cut the magazine limit to five rounds, and to require psychiatric evaluations and home inspections before issuance of the firearm ownership license. Recently three legislators had an embarrassing “hot mike” problem after a gun bill hearing, in which someone proclaimed, “We needed a bill that is going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”
Or try New York, long considered to have the strictest gun laws in the country, including requiring pistol possession permits (issued at the sole discretion of police, with application fees as high as $340), carry permits limited in some jurisdictions to government officials and celebrities, and a 10 round magazine limit. Then came the Newtown slayings, and the legislature decided it must do something more. The legislation it rushed through reduced the allowed magazine capacity to seven rounds (effectively outlawing the many firearms for which seven round magazines have never been made), required background checks to buy ammunition, and greatly broadened its “assault rifle ban.”
New York’s Attorney General described this as “modest first step.”
So much for compromise.
Why Gun Owners Are Right to Fight Against Gun Control
In April, the Senate rejected the Toomey-Manchin gun control proposal. In the wake of its defeat many asked why gun owners and their organizations resisted so limited a measure. Granted, it would have had little but symbolic benefit. Its core was to require background checks at gun shows (which Bureau of Justice Statistics concluded involved a whole 0.8 percent of crime guns) and on Internet gun sales (a miniscule proportion, most of which probably go through licensed dealers anyway). But why not accept something so modest, in light of the draconian ideas then being floated as alternatives
Understanding the rejection requires understanding gun owners’ shared experiences. Compromise requires that both parties relinquish something. If your counterpart’s position is “give me this now, and I’ll take the rest later,” there is no real compromise to be had. Over decades, that has been precisely the experience of American gun owners.
Back in 1976, Pete Shields, chairman of what is today the Brady Campaign, candidly laid out the blueprint for The New Yorker:
We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.
The group’s first target was “Saturday Night Specials,” inexpensive small revolvers, alleged to be criminals’ preferred gun. When that approach gained traction, Shields shifted to a larger target, claim that criminals were now using “expensive, but small pistols,” so all small pistols had to be banned. “Concealability is the key,” he now explained.
As the years passed, it became apparent that this was going nowhere; a different first “slice” would have to be found. In 1990, Violence Policy Center (VPC) announced that it had found it. The debate must be switched from small handguns to large “assault rifles.”
Handguns, VPC explained, had become a media and political nonissue, while calls to outlaw “assault rifles” would benefit from mistaken impressions, i.e., “the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun.” That rifles of all types were involved in about 300 homicides a year was beside the point. The search was for a target of opportunity, not a solution to crime.
The major gun control organizations bought the idea, to the point of changing their names to replace “handgun” with “gun.” Pete Shields’ group, Handgun Control, Inc., became the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns became the Coalition To Stop Gun Violence.
The change underscored a lesson gun owners had already learned. Their opponents would go for any target of opportunity—if handgun restrictions didn’t fly, try to restrict rifles—and use that as a foundation to take more in the future. Any “reasonable compromise” would simply be a first step in a long campaign to make firearm ownership as difficult, expensive, and legally risky as possible.
Take the example of California. There, 1920s legislation required a permit for concealed carry of a firearm, required dealers to report handgun sales to the state, and imposed a one-day waiting period for handgun sales.
The one-day wait was meant to impede “crimes of passion,” but in 1955 it was increased to three days, in 1965 to five days, and in 1975 to 10 days.
Open carry of a firearm was initially allowed. In 1967, open carrying of loaded guns was prohibited. In recent years, open carrying even of unloaded guns was forbidden in incorporated areas. The mere sight of an unloaded gun was apparently too much for the California legislature to tolerate.
In 2001, dealers were forbidden to sell handguns that were not approved by the government, after rigorous laboratory testing, funded by the manufacturer. Every slight variation, even changes in color or finish, required a new certification. The tests actually had nothing to do with reliability or safety, as evidenced by the exemption of law enforcement firearms from them.
Along the way, the state banned “assault weapons,” magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and private gun sales that didn’t go through dealers. In 1999, “one gun a month” was enacted, for no discernible reason (why would a gun runner pick the most tightly regulated state in the West as his source?)
Today, the weapons regulation portion of the California Penal Code Annotated spans over 1,050 pages, yet at last count 68 more gun control measures are pending in the legislature. No matter how much the advocates of gun control get, it will never be enough. Or try New Jersey, which requires a license to own guns, plus a separate permit for each handgun. Carrying open or concealed is in practice forbidden (the legal standard for a permit is “urgent necessity”), carrying of hollow-point bullets is subject to complex rules, and magazines are limited to 15 rounds.
That’s not enough, apparently, since the New Jersey legislature is considering bills to cut the magazine limit to five rounds, and to require psychiatric evaluations and home inspections before issuance of the firearm ownership license. Recently three legislators had an embarrassing “hot mike” problem after a gun bill hearing, in which someone proclaimed, “We needed a bill that is going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”
Or try New York, long considered to have the strictest gun laws in the country, including requiring pistol possession permits (issued at the sole discretion of police, with application fees as high as $340), carry permits limited in some jurisdictions to government officials and celebrities, and a 10 round magazine limit. Then came the Newtown slayings, and the legislature decided it must do something more. The legislation it rushed through reduced the allowed magazine capacity to seven rounds (effectively outlawing the many firearms for which seven round magazines have never been made), required background checks to buy ammunition, and greatly broadened its “assault rifle ban.”
New York’s Attorney General described this as “modest first step.”
So much for compromise.
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
JJ4
I agree with you, Senator Timilty, who told me he is not a gun guy never the less worked with us to make the law as good as possible in this state. He also worked with me on the C&R and on the day of the original vote on the bill had his people call me and spend about 30 minutes on the phone with me to modify the C&R language so that it would work for us. He did a great job.
Horrible
NES Member
This is MA. And we did force a re-write of a bill that fat DeLeo thought was going to breeze right through. I think that a lot of lawmakers and antis were caught completely off-guard with this. They put a lot of time and money into this. They mobilized the Moms and the NAACP and had t-shirts and signs made up and the works for the hearings held last summer. Although, somewhat disappointed with losing more rights in this craphole, it did end better than I had anticipated.
Yes, they will be back for more. They always will. Until we are all completely disarmed. That is not the case just here in MA. That is the case in every single state. I think that our side has a lot of lessons learned from this latest battle over the past (almost) 2 years. We'll be ready for the upcoming fights and possibly better prepared.
Last edited:
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
Personally in this state how can we the .03 percent stop them? Yes the ideal would be to be like Vermont with no licenses but that is never going to happen, not in this state! We can talk about never giving in, stopping them but it is like building a sand wall on the beach, yes you can stop the tide for a while but you cannot hold it back it will wear it away and it will be like it never was there.
That is gun owners in Mass. Granted our numbers are growing but still way below what they used to be.
I think you could look at it like pulling medical tape off a hairy chest, you can do it slow or fast but there is no way you are getting it off without some pain, the whole thing is how much pain do you want?
Palladin
NES Member
HEY! Don't insult vaginas by comparing them to Linsky. Last time I checked, vaginas were AWESOME!
uhh.... citation/link?
EJFudd
NES Member
Senator Timility really impressed me. For a non-gunowner... and a Massachusetts Democrat at that... he seemed to actually get it... i.e., the notion that the 2nd Amendment actually means something. I appreciate his efforts on our behalf and I'll be letting him know that.
EJFudd
NES Member
You are right. They will never stop. But not because of this nor in spite of this. It is simply what they do. We have to recognize that and accept that this is an endless battle... 'cause that's exactly what it is.
daveshrews
NES Member
As far as I know that is correct. There is no change regarding the EOPS list / AG list. Queen Coakley still gets to tell us which guns are safe to use and which ones will randomly start shooting children and cops on their own.
According to a post by GOAL, "Olympic style handguns" are now permitted to be sold by dealers however. I haven't seen exact details on this, but I think they are those wacky Pardini things, etc.
Horrible
NES Member
This is good, but be sure to judge them on their votes and their actions and not just their words.
- Status
Similar threads
