Just my thoughts on mass gun law

[gearjunky13]

So being new to guns i would like to put out there some what i think are good and bad gun laws.

I know what i think might be way off and i have no problem if you disagree, but keep it friendly, and helpfull, agen being new hear i may have been brain washed a bit, but i think what i have to say is sound and would like some educated Feed back if im missing Somthing important.


The good

1) mandatory basic fire arms training. it may seem to some to be a waste of time but i think a lot of people including my self have a better and safer understanding of guns and the gun laws in mass because of this. I like it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[update] ( due to a outstanding number of good points on how this is not actually helping anyone , i reconsider it to be actualy be bad only on the president of it being mandatory)

2) no gun sale wating period. The automated licence confirmation for gun sales is somthing i like very much.


The bad

1) the mass aproved hand gun list. now i would not have as much of a problem with this law nor do i believe gun manufactures would either if the law wasn't so complicated and unclear. The fact that mass wants only guns that are of a safe quality, and will not be a hazard To the shooter or people around them is not a bad thing, but no one knows what the true qualifications are because as far as i know nothing is set in stone on a true guide line for gun quality and aproval.

2) the assault weapon ban, i dont think i have to say much about this one other then wtf
Seriously?

3) no new high cap mags, well this one is not only a stupid law but it has caused good people alot of grief over nothing. I dont think this law was needed. i believe it fixed a problem that was never there.

The laws above are the ones that stick out the most to me but if you can think of more or elaborate more one one of these with your thoughts feel free, but please keep is on topic.

 

[drgrant]

1) mandatory basic fire arms training. it may seem to some to be a waste of time but i think a lot of people including my self have a better and safer understanding of guns and the gun laws in mass because of this. I like it

I've been muzzle swept with loaded guns by people who had their BFS/BP cert. It doesn't make anyone safer, the only people who are safer are the ones who actually heed the training. Forcing people to get a cert doesn't mean they will handle guns safely.

As far as "understanding the laws" go, obviously most of these courses don't cover the laws well, otherwise we wouldn't be getting flooded with legal questions here every day.

-Mike

 

[dlarge]

This one is trouble...

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Why do you feel the need to have "training" for a natural right? Do you have "training" on the rights under the first amendment? How about the repeated instances where trained police can't hit the broad side of a barn? I have never had any formal training and don't feel it should be required. Is training a wise idea, most definitely.

 

[Bill Katt]

The good: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!

The bad: everything else.





ETA: I do however encourage people that are unfamiliar with firearms to seek out training on their own.

 

[gearjunky13]

I've been muzzle swept with loaded guns by people who had their BFS/BP cert. It doesn't make anyone safer, the only people who are safer are the ones who actually heed the training. Forcing people to get a cert doesn't mean they will handle guns safely.

As far as "understanding the laws" go, obviously most of these courses don't cover the laws well, otherwise we wouldn't be getting flooded with legal questions here every day.

-Mike

Good points, its my best hope to always learn from others as best i can, but its one thing to tell some one how to do somthing and another to actualy do it, i still beleave you can get some good frome going to one, but it falls in part to how good your instructer is and who is being instructed. my instructor at mfs had told the class not to just go to a range by yourself when you first get your licence, but to go with or find some one with exsperince to help you get started shooting on your own.

 

[Lignum Vitea]

Can't seem to find "training" or license for that matter in the Second Amendment. Someone help me out here.

 

[gearjunky13]

Why do you feel the need to have "training" for a natural right? Do you have "training" on the rights under the first amendment? How about the repeated instances where trained police can't hit the broad side of a barn? I have never had any formal training and don't feel it should be required. Is training a wise idea, most definitely.

A valid point, but the thing is it dident take much time to do and for me i did find it helpfull but, agen i know for some it seems to be a waste of time but it dosent hirt to take it and you get to go shooting in the process. Also its not a law that to me is taking away any rights.

 

[JohnMarston]

yeah, alot of the laws arent very well written and for the most part contradictory. I have alot of negative feelings about them myself, all at the same time we sure can still get some great guns. I know we cant have everything here, but i would like to think i didnt have to "settle" on a gun because i didnt have options.

just my thoughts,
Dom

 

[gearjunky13]

I know we cant have everything here, but i would like to think i didnt have to "settle" on a gun because i didnt have options.

just my thoughts,
Dom

I agree with the fact that i dont feel i had to settel with less of a gun, but i do wish when they make crap laws up, that at the least it makes sence.

 

[joeendris]

Why do you feel the need to have "training" for a natural right? Do you have "training" on the rights under the first amendment? How about the repeated instances where trained police can't hit the broad side of a barn? I have never had any formal training and don't feel it should be required. Is training a wise idea, most definitely.

I'm at odds here. You're taught how to talk. You're taught how to drive a car. You're taught how to operate machinery. You're taught what's safe, what's not. Can someone smarter than me, explain why folks are opposed to getting trained on a piece of machinery, because that is what a firearm is, at it's core.

As far as the rest of the "rules", it seems like they're just put down so some legislator can jusifiy their paycheck by "coming up with new laws"...or some such crap.

 

[gearjunky13]

Can't seem to find "training" or license for that matter in the Second Amendment. Someone help me out here.

I here ya, but it not hard or bad to take

 

[gearjunky13]

I'm at odds here. You're taught how to talk. You're taught how to drive a car. You're taught how to operate machinery. You're taught what's safe,.

Good point, this is kinda how i feel, i know not everyone follows the rules but at the very least id like to know the person next to me shooting has had some traning.

 

[Obie1]

Bad: application, fingerprinting, storage, locks, transportation, ammo (really, a kid can't pick up a casing?), sales tax, etc. The good ones: hmm...

 

[Mike-Mike]

I'm at odds here. You're taught how to talk. You're taught how to drive a car. You're taught how to operate machinery. You're taught what's safe, what's not. Can someone smarter than me, explain why folks are opposed to getting trained on a piece of machinery, because that is what a firearm is, at it's core.

As far as the rest of the "rules", it seems like they're just put down so some legislator can jusifiy their paycheck by "coming up with new laws"...or some such crap.

Let's flip the question. Do you think mandatory training should be required to buy or operate every piece of machinery. Chainsaws? Drills? Pencil sharpener?

 

[gearjunky13]

This one is trouble...

It could be, but so far so good!

 

[JohnMarston]

i detest the word "training"...it makes me feel like a dog LOL i do however believe that some instruction of safety and a walk thru of how to use these tools, because thats what they are is nessesary. Maybe not in a class, but like a father passes down knowledge and wisdom to his children. Am i making sense? a real and personal walk thru of do's and do nots, thats how my daddy did it

 

[jar]

I'm at odds here. You're taught how to talk. You're taught how to drive a car. You're taught how to operate machinery. You're taught what's safe, what's not. Can someone smarter than me, explain why folks are opposed to getting trained on a piece of machinery, because that is what a firearm is, at it's core.

As far as the rest of the "rules", it seems like they're just put down so some legislator can jusifiy their paycheck by "coming up with new laws"...or some such crap.

The training requirements aren't there to increase safety. They're there to make gun ownership more difficult and expensive. Such infringement on a natural right is not to be taken lightly. I'm not at all opposed to firearms training. I think everyone new to shooting should get some. I am, however, opposed to the government mandating it. The ~$100 cost and day of time might not be a big hardship for most, but what about the fixed income grandmother in Dorchester who's watched her neighborhood go to shit around her and can barely afford a battered old shotgun for home protection, let alone the $100 for a class and another $100 for an LTC/FID. Does she have any less of a natural right to self defense than I do? Absolutely not.

 

[drgrant]

I'm at odds here. You're taught how to talk. You're taught how to drive a car. You're taught how to operate machinery. You're taught what's safe, what's not. Can someone smarter than me, explain why folks are opposed to getting trained on a piece of machinery, because that is what a firearm is, at it's core.

As far as the rest of the "rules", it seems like they're just put down so some legislator can jusifiy their paycheck by "coming up with new laws"...or some such crap.

I don't think most of us here are opposed to training, per se, rather we're opposed to the notional that the government should be able to force you to get it. Every extra requirement that gets put in place ends up being an infringement, and doesn't usually increase safety.

-Mike

 

[bigtig50]

I think the a**hole gun laws in MA do exactly what they intended. The serious enthusiast or long-time hard liners will do the "dance" to whatever song they play, because of the serious interest and/or love of the sport. Many who are just getting started or are too busy to weave their way through crap that even those who wrote it don't understand, will just get fed up and go on to other things. It is so important that we keep up the fight that these are our RIGHTS and not privileges to be granted at the whim of a police department or other governing body.

 

[bill o]

The training requirements aren't there to increase safety. They're there to make gun ownership more difficult and expensive. Such infringement on a natural right is not to be taken lightly. I'm not at all opposed to firearms training. I think everyone new to shooting should get some. I am, however, opposed to the government mandating it. The ~$100 cost and day of time might not be a big hardship for most, but what about the fixed income grandmother in Dorchester who's watched her neighborhood go to shit around her and can barely afford a battered old shotgun for home protection, let alone the $100 for a class and another $100 for an LTC/FID. Does she have any less of a natural right to self defense than I do? Absolutely not.

Jar- You forgot the extra $200 for lessons and ammo to learn how to shoot a DA revolver at the Moon Island range.

This is a big burden to some of us, gearjunky. It's not a well intentioned safety measure. I'm not aware of any evidence that links mandatory training to better safety outcomes.

 

[Brandon1317]

I'm at odds here. You're taught how to talk. You're taught how to drive a car. You're taught how to operate machinery. You're taught what's safe, what's not. Can someone smarter than me, explain why folks are opposed to getting trained on a piece of machinery, because that is what a firearm is, at it's core.

As far as the rest of the "rules", it seems like they're just put down so some legislator can jusifiy their paycheck by "coming up with new laws"...or some such crap.

Here we go you guys did it now! Now I'm chiming in!

Common sense would say its a good thing that you get some training with a deadly weapon but most on here as mentioned say it infringes on their rights which yes it does but your handling a object that could kill your self or some one else very easily. So you should know how to use it, even if the training only helps one out of a hundred people that is better then nothing. Although not a right do you want people driving around in cars without ever getting any training? I would hope not!

Their has to be some give and take to win the battle and this is one of those give situations that may make some feeler a little safer when they go to bed at night then so be it.

 

[RobertPaulson]

The training requirements aren't there to increase safety. They're there to make gun ownership more difficult and expensive. Such infringement on a natural right is not to be taken lightly. I'm not at all opposed to firearms training. I think everyone new to shooting should get some. I am, however, opposed to the government mandating it. The ~$100 cost and day of time might not be a big hardship for most, but what about the fixed income grandmother in Dorchester who's watched her neighborhood go to shit around her and can barely afford a battered old shotgun for home protection, let alone the $100 for a class and another $100 for an LTC/FID. Does she have any less of a natural right to self defense than I do? Absolutely not.

Don't forget that grandmother from Dorchester also has to get herself to Moon Island to qualify on the BPD range with a handgun she is quite possibly completely unfamiliar with.


Doh Bill O just beat me to it.

 

[gearjunky13]

I must make my self clear on one thing, and that is im not oposed to getting rid of the laws but we all know there not going any ware soon. there are some laws that have just pure stupidity written into them and there are some imo that dont harm anyone or realy take anything away from gun owners, but i get it, in this world if you give a inch they take a mile, but if all i was left for laws was on the good list i wouldent have a hard time living with them.

 

[Colt Delta Elite]

I've been muzzle swept with loaded guns by people who had their BFS/BP cert. It doesn't make anyone safer, the only people who are safer are the ones who actually heed the training. Forcing people to get a cert doesn't mean they will handle guns safely.

As far as "understanding the laws" go, obviously most of these courses don't cover the laws well, otherwise we wouldn't be getting flooded with legal questions here every day.

-Mike

This about sums it up!

 

[Brandon1317]

Let's flip the question. Do you think mandatory training should be required to buy or operate every piece of machinery. Chainsaws? Drills? Pencil sharpener?

Well at some point some one should have atleast shown you how to properly use any those you listed hopefully.

 

[gearjunky13]

Jar- You forgot the extra $200 for lessons and ammo to learn how to shoot a DA revolver at the Moon Island range.

This is a big burden to some of us, gearjunky. It's not a well intentioned safety measure. I'm not aware of any evidence that links mandatory training to better safety outcomes.

I respect your point, its very valid

 

[ARV]

 

[atilla]

i even resisted the urge to post cats...

 

[Colt Delta Elite]

To the OP WTF? Seriously ??