In the Wake of Heller: A Campaign for "Shall Issue"

Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
583
Likes
41
Location
Canton, MA
Feedback: 10 / 0 / 0
This is one of those "Throw it against the walls and see what sticks" threads.

In the wake of the Heller ruling, would now be the time for MA gun owners and associations to band together and start the campaign to turn MA into a "Shall Issue" state?

Anyone with experience on how this kind of thing might be accomplished? A binding ballot question perhaps?

There's a lot of talk about how to get the laws in MA to work to our advantage, and I keep wondering if it wouldn't be better to just try to get the laws changed.
 
I want MA to have a possession without a license (I don't care about carry), so I can bring my pistol(s)/rifle(s) into MA to gun clubs or whatever without worrying if a cop will know FOPA or if they'll arrest me and beat me to a pulp for carrying to an event and so when I get back to NH I'm not stripped of my rights until I get home.
 
Anyone with experience on how this kind of thing might be accomplished? A binding ballot question perhaps?

I think a ballot question is a bad idea. Passage would require far more education of the public than can be done in a short timeframe.
 
In the wake of the Heller ruling, would now be the time for MA gun owners and associations to band together and start the campaign to turn MA into a "Shall Issue" state?

Hate to burst the bubble but if you actually read and understand the Heller decision, you will understand that it can't be used as a tool to do what you suggest, the scope of the decision simply is not wide enough.

Heller might be able to:

-Kill off certain safe storage requirements (eg, like the notional of guns being locked up all the time, etc. )

-Destroy the notional of a suitability denial, at least on something like an LTC-B, which is now generally considered the minimum now to keep a handgun in one's home. Thus, you might be able to make an LTC-B "shall issue" in that respect.

Expecting shall issue CCW out of it is reaching a bit, as the decision doesn't address carry at all.

I hate a lot of euphemisms... but "You can't get there from here" is somehow appropriate.

-Mike
 
I think shall issue of restricted LTC-As is within the scope of Heller, assuming incorporation. 'high capacity' handguns certainly passes the entire class of arms in common-use test with flying colors.
 
"Shall issue" legislation, by itself, would never get through the political process. It wouldn't hurt to try, but that is just my opinion.

Most legislation that gets approved usually has a series of add-ons by numerous parties in order to get the support needed to move through the house and senate.

It could work as part of a more comprehensive "Firearms Safety Bill".

1. For instance putting the gun licensing at the State level and removing the local PD from the process altogether. It really makes no sense the way it is done now.

2. This could/should also entail much more comprehensive training in safety and use of firearms.

As it currently stands now, it is absolutely ridiculous, that someone can take a course, get an LTC, go buy a firearm, and has never fired a weapon!!!!!
 
Hate to burst the bubble but if you actually read and understand the Heller decision, you will understand that it can't be used as a tool to do what you suggest, the scope of the decision simply is not wide enough.

Heller might be able to:

-Kill off certain safe storage requirements (eg, like the notional of guns being locked up all the time, etc. )

-Destroy the notional of a suitability denial, at least on something like an LTC-B, which is now generally considered the minimum now to keep a handgun in one's home. Thus, you might be able to make an LTC-B "shall issue" in that respect.

Expecting shall issue CCW out of it is reaching a bit, as the decision doesn't address carry at all.

I hate a lot of euphemisms... but "You can't get there from here" is somehow appropriate.

-Mike

What bubble are you bursting?

A public relations campaign/ballot question feeds off of the publicity of such a decision and the information that the SCOTUS ruled being able to own a handgun and keep it in your house to be a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Massachusetts can make it's own laws under it's own jurisdiction, and those laws might not be subject to the influence of the Heller decision. It's the power of the idea of a constitutionally guaranteed right that can be influenced by it.

Even a "Shall Issue" LTC-B is a positive step.
 
2. This could/should also entail much more comprehensive training in safety and use of firearms.

As it currently stands now, it is absolutely ridiculous, that someone can take a course, get an LTC, go buy a firearm, and has never fired a weapon!!!!!

In a free state, someone can go buy a gun without any BS. The expense and inconvenience of the training requirements and licensing already keep many people out of the shooting sports. Increasing these costs even further could be the death of shooting sports in MA.
 
What bubble are you bursting?

I misunderstood your inquiry a bit.... sorry. [thinking] I read too fast and thought you were referencing using Heller as a legal device, eg, incorporation, etc.

A public relations campaign/ballot question feeds off of the publicity of such a decision and the information that the SCOTUS ruled being able to own a handgun and keep it in your house to be a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Massachusetts can make it's own laws under it's own jurisdiction, and those laws might not be subject to the influence of the Heller decision. It's the power of the idea of a constitutionally guaranteed right that can be influenced by it.

Even a "Shall Issue" LTC-B is a positive step.

I don't think this approach will work in a state where a large portion of the
legislature and a crapload of voters don't support or don't care about the 2nd amendment.

The only way I can see anything like it working is if MA state government tries to forestall "forced" incorporation of Heller by allowing modifications to existing law to comply with the ruling, but I find even that hard to believe as being probable.

-Mike
 
In a free state, someone can go buy a gun without any BS. The expense and inconvenience of the training requirements and licensing already keep many people out of the shooting sports. Increasing these costs even further could be the death of shooting sports in MA.

First of all Mass is not a free state and regulations are something that today, we all will have to deal with.

I disagree with with you on a couple of counts.

1. I would rather know that someone carrying a gun knows how to use it. How many times have people here shot at a range next to a novice. It can be pretty scary.

2. Comprehensive training will require more of a commitment than currently exists. The current training costs may go up a little but this is a relatively small amount, by anyone's standards.

I think that a system which requires not only more training but a level of achievement before earning your license will actually serve as more of an attraction to the sport.
 
I misunderstood your inquiry a bit.... sorry. [thinking] I read too fast and thought you were referencing using Heller as a legal device, eg, incorporation, etc.



I don't think this approach will work in a state where a large portion of the
legislature and a crapload of voters don't support or don't care about the 2nd amendment.

The only way I can see anything like it working is if MA state government tries to forestall "forced" incorporation of Heller by allowing modifications to existing law to comply with the ruling, but I find even that hard to believe as being probable.

-Mike

IMO, and I speak of this only from life experience, the best way to get what you want from a group of people that do not agree with you is to try to change their perception of the situation. I am suggesting that the Heller ruling might be a nice platform from which to springboard this effort.
 
First of all Mass is not a free state and regulations are something that today, we all will have to deal with.

I disagree with with you on a couple of counts.

1. I would rather know that someone carrying a gun knows how to use it. How many times have people here shot at a range next to a novice. It can be pretty scary.

2. Comprehensive training will require more of a commitment than currently exists. The current training costs may go up a little but this is a relatively small amount, by anyone's standards.

I think that a system which requires not only more training but a level of achievement before earning your license will actually serve as more of an attraction to the sport.

Strict constitutionalists will disagree with what you say here and call you a nanny state kind of guy.

I have no reall issue with a licensing process that includes a safety course and a background check. IMO the only disqualifier should be a violent felony conviction, but I don't have an issue with that check being performed.

I think the major need for us is to illustrate the point to the populace that we're the good guys.

Deep down all people want some kind of security, and when there is violence afoot most people want an armed man available to protect them. With the 'self defense' ruling by the SCOTUS, it's a good time to promote that feeling.
 
First of all Mass is not a free state and regulations are something that today, we all will have to deal with.

I disagree with with you on a couple of counts.

1. I would rather know that someone carrying a gun knows how to use it. How many times have people here shot at a range next to a novice. It can be pretty scary.

2. Comprehensive training will require more of a commitment than currently exists. The current training costs may go up a little but this is a relatively small amount, by anyone's standards.

I think that a system which requires not only more training but a level of achievement before earning your license will actually serve as more of an attraction to the sport.

Yes, we have to deal with regulations, but I refuse to encourage any more. We're not talking about carry here, we're talking about the requirements to even own a gun.

I've shot next to people who've been shooting longer than I've been alive who scared me more than any novice. More state mandated training won't improve safety. The way to improve safety is to correct these things when they happen.

The current cost of training and a license roughly doubles the cost of obtaining a serviceable firearm for defense of the home. Sure the cost isn't that much by typical NESer standards. However it can be a huge burden to poor families. Should the civil right to self defense only be afforded to the middle and upper class?

As far as stricter licensing bringing in more people, that doesn't pass the basic smell test. How should someone without any connection to a shooter get good enough to pass some sort of test, when they can't buy a gun to practice with? Look at GOAL's numbers of the massive drop off in licenses after the stricter laws passed in 1998.
 
The current cost of training and a license roughly doubles the cost of obtaining a serviceable firearm for defense of the home. Sure the cost isn't that much by typical NESer standards. However it can be a huge burden to poor families. Should the civil right to self defense only be afforded to the middle and upper class?

Not much we can do about the licensing fee, except complain to our legislators.

The safety courses could be impacted by members of the shooting community if they were willing to donate time to it. That's one part of the equation where capitalism is embedded, and folks that wanted to mitigate that could do so.
 
Yes, we have to deal with regulations, but I refuse to encourage any more. We're not talking about carry here, we're talking about the requirements to even own a gun.

I've shot next to people who've been shooting longer than I've been alive who scared me more than any novice. More state mandated training won't improve safety. The way to improve safety is to correct these things when they happen.

The current cost of training and a license roughly doubles the cost of obtaining a serviceable firearm for defense of the home. Sure the cost isn't that much by typical NESer standards. However it can be a huge burden to poor families. Should the civil right to self defense only be afforded to the middle and upper class?

As far as stricter licensing bringing in more people, that doesn't pass the basic smell test. How should someone without any connection to a shooter get good enough to pass some sort of test, when they can't buy a gun to practice with? Look at GOAL's numbers of the massive drop off in licenses after the stricter laws passed in 1998.

+ a billion. All increasing the requirements do is make it that much harder for us to get new people involved. It would be trading one kind of terrorism for another.

-Mike
 
I really dont disagree with either of the last few posts.

I honestly think that what I suggested would make us "more the good guys" than currently exists. And that is a good point and issue. Currently the "good guys" at GOAL for example, are viewed by the politicians in an adversarial role when in fact GOAL provides and supports a high level of training and safety.

With regard to being able to practice with a gun- that is exactly what the training would involve. Also, anyone serious about the sport can easily find his way to the private gun clubs and groups who are usually more than eager to share equipment and give advice.
 
Also, anyone serious about the sport can easily find his way to the private gun clubs and groups who are usually more than eager to share equipment and give advice.

If we want gun ownership to remain politically viable in MA, we need more than those 'serious about the sport'. A $100 license already reduced us from 1,500,000 legal gun owners in MA to 240,000.
 
If we want gun ownership to remain politically viable in MA, we need more than those 'serious about the sport'. A $100 license already reduced us from 1,500,000 legal gun owners in MA to 240,000.

Not by itself.

It was making hitherto-irrelevant prior convictions statutory disqualifiers that was responsible for the greatest loss of licensees.

Which was, of course, the real objective.
 
szaino, I think the issue is that you can never legislate safety. It doesn't matter how many courses one takes, it doesn't mean they will use their brain with guns. Ever see the video of DEA Agent Lee Paige shooting himself in the leg in front of a class of Florida schoolchildren? IIRC he was a firearms instructor, so you'd think he wouldn't have broken all those safety rules he did if he paid any attention to the classes he taught.

Not only that, but when you need a gun, you need it ASAP, not when the government deems that you can safely own it. If you live in New Hampshire (and aren't a prohibited person) and your life is threatened at 9:00 a.m., by 9:30 a.m. you can have 3 guns, 1,000 rounds of ammo, and as long as you open carry you can take the pistol with you almost anywhere you go. You can apply for a restraining order and get a gun on the way back home from a gun store, or you can borrow one from a friend until you get your own.

If you live in Massachusetts, if you're threatened at 9 a.m., you can call your local PD to get the application (and see what extra illegal requirements they have, since it's different in all 351 municipalities). You can fill it out, find a Basic Firearms Safety course, schedule it, pay for it, and sit through 3-12 hours of training. You can then schedule an interview with your local CLEO/licensing officer, show up for the interview days or weeks later (whenever they schedule it, remember), pay $100, apply, if you're approved, wait however long it takes for the application to be processed (5-6 weeks if all goes well), then call the police department to find out when it comes in. Keep in mind, the entire time you're waiting for this LTC/FID, it's illegal to have so much as a can of pepper spray in your house.

If your life were threatened, which state would you rather live in? The one where legal self-defense is instantly available to law abiding citizens, or one where you can apply for the right to self defense Monday-Friday, 9 to 5, and provided you aren't unsuitable, you can defend yourself 5 weeks from the date of your interview, providing all goes well?

I didn't get into guns until I felt a need to have them, and it took me months from making the decision "I need a gun" until I could legally have one in my hands in this state.

Guns aren't something we need to protect everyone from like rabid animals or exposed electical wires. No matter who and how we teach people about them, there will always be idiots with guns, and there will always be criminals with guns. We won't change that until we wipe out the human race or drink the Brady Campaign red Kool Aid.

The one thing we can do is make sure that law-abiding citizens aren't totally screwed by the gun laws when they need to protect themselves, and IMHO the best way to do that is to put the same restrictions on law-abiding gun owners that there are on criminals: none.

Please don't take offense from me here, I'm not trying to be unkind, I just think that gun safety should be an individual responsibility, not a state run/controlled one.
 
1. For instance putting the gun licensing at the State level and removing the local PD from the process altogether. It really makes no sense the way it is done now.

While I agree with you that it doesn't make sense as it stands now, I would worry about any state-level issuing, because that makes the rights of all MA gun owners (or prospective gun owners) subject to the political influence of those inside the 128 loop. Judging from the map of our gun rights, I can't imagine that would be a good thing...
 
While I agree with you that it doesn't make sense as it stands now, I would worry about any state-level issuing, because that makes the rights of all MA gun owners (or prospective gun owners) subject to the political influence of those inside the 128 loop. Judging from the map of our gun rights, I can't imagine that would be a good thing...

+1 to that, I think the only good thing that would do is make it so there's only one entity to fight for our rights with, and one set standard.
 
szaino, I think the issue is that you can never legislate safety. It doesn't matter how many courses one takes, it doesn't mean they will use their brain with guns. Ever see the video of DEA Agent Lee Paige shooting himself in the leg in front of a class of Florida schoolchildren? IIRC he was a firearms instructor, so you'd think he wouldn't have broken all those safety rules he did if he paid any attention to the classes he taught.

Not only that, but when you need a gun, you need it ASAP, not when the government deems that you can safely own it. If you live in New Hampshire (and aren't a prohibited person) and your life is threatened at 9:00 a.m., by 9:30 a.m. you can have 3 guns, 1,000 rounds of ammo, and as long as you open carry you can take the pistol with you almost anywhere you go. You can apply for a restraining order and get a gun on the way back home from a gun store, or you can borrow one from a friend until you get your own.

If you live in Massachusetts, if you're threatened at 9 a.m., you can call your local PD to get the application (and see what extra illegal requirements they have, since it's different in all 351 municipalities). You can fill it out, find a Basic Firearms Safety course, schedule it, pay for it, and sit through 3-12 hours of training. You can then schedule an interview with your local CLEO/licensing officer, show up for the interview days or weeks later (whenever they schedule it, remember), pay $100, apply, if you're approved, wait however long it takes for the application to be processed (5-6 weeks if all goes well), then call the police department to find out when it comes in. Keep in mind, the entire time you're waiting for this LTC/FID, it's illegal to have so much as a can of pepper spray in your house.

If your life were threatened, which state would you rather live in? The one where legal self-defense is instantly available to law abiding citizens, or one where you can apply for the right to self defense Monday-Friday, 9 to 5, and provided you aren't unsuitable, you can defend yourself 5 weeks from the date of your interview, providing all goes well?

I didn't get into guns until I felt a need to have them, and it took me months from making the decision "I need a gun" until I could legally have one in my hands in this state.

Guns aren't something we need to protect everyone from like rabid animals or exposed electical wires. No matter who and how we teach people about them, there will always be idiots with guns, and there will always be criminals with guns. We won't change that until we wipe out the human race or drink the Brady Campaign red Kool Aid.

The one thing we can do is make sure that law-abiding citizens aren't totally screwed by the gun laws when they need to protect themselves, and IMHO the best way to do that is to put the same restrictions on law-abiding gun owners that there are on criminals: none.

Please don't take offense from me here, I'm not trying to be unkind, I just think that gun safety should be an individual responsibility, not a state run/controlled one.


That is one awesome post!
Well said!
A +rep point for you.[wink]
 
s
The one thing we can do is make sure that law-abiding citizens aren't totally screwed by the gun laws when they need to protect themselves, and IMHO the best way to do that is to put the same restrictions on law-abiding gun owners that there are on criminals: none.

This is what I am talking about.

It's not going to happen with one law, one vote, or all at one time. The trick is to find the right steps to take to get things moving in this direction.
 
This is what I am talking about.

It's not going to happen with one law, one vote, or all at one time. The trick is to find the right steps to take to get things moving in this direction.

Definitely, because as long as gun control groups can create hysteria through lies to the Million Mom March and those types, lifting all restrictions wouldn't be recieved well. But we have to keep moving in that direction.
 
szaino,

...Please don't take offense from me here, I'm not trying to be unkind, I just think that gun safety should be an individual responsibility, not a state run/controlled one.

No offense taken. But we are going a little off topic from the whole "shall issue" point.

Part of my original suggestion is being taken out of context. The reality exists that there is a "give and take" in any law changes. Requiring more (some) hands-on training as part of the "shall issue" was what I was talking about.

I am very much opposed to the Govt regulating everything we do.

Having said that, I do not oppose all regulation. I still feel that people need to be adequatelty trained before being able to go and buy their own firearm. If that is done at the local, state, or federal level I could care less as long as it makes sense.

Would you want a 16 year old to be able to get a drivers license with out any training and hop in a car on the same streets that you drive?

Would you want the Doctor that is about to cut open your stomach to get at your ruptured appendix to have a medical license from some on line course?

Firearms are something to be taken very seriously, as seriously as the above examples, so I do disagree with your "gun safety should be an individual responsibility, not a state run/controlled one."
 
A problem with a ballot question would be it's likely defeat.

Great example is Question 1. It was soundly defeated, now the MBTA thugs are boosting parking and commuting fees, and the Turnpike Authority is increasing it's usage taxes too.

So in other words, a defeat of a firearms-rights related ballot question could become the harbinger of more gun-rights restrictions. Blowback?
 
Back
Top Bottom