This state sucks. I brought mine up to the NH Residence Saturday.
-
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.
Linsky after bump stocks AND pre ban mags !!!!!!!!!
- Thread starter Idoktr
- Start date
This evening we sent goal's email to over 46,000 people on our email list.
Let's hope many respond to the call to contact their State Senators...
Steve
Let's hope many respond to the call to contact their State Senators...
Steve
The vote is tomorrow.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,750
- Likes
- 542
Last edited:
It only passed the House. Two more steps to be law.
See Post #390
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,551
You do not understand the definition of ex post facto.
These calls might have an effect IF they concentrate on "remove the mag ban." They will fall on deaf ears if you ask your Senator to oppose the bump stock ban.
Can you explain it then, Is it the 6 month grace period that makes it ok?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,551
Nothing makes it "OK". I am observing the reality that there is NOTHING we can do to prevent a bump stock ban from passing in the DPRM. Nothing. We need to recognize that and concentrate on damage control. It is not a matter of "willingly surrendering" - they have us beat on this one, plain and simple.
The fact that such a law results in a "governmental taking" might make for some interesting court challenges, but even there, the issue might center around compensation rather than keeping the banned property. My guess is the courts would find some excuse to deny compensation, and set a precedent for the Linskys - "See, you can ban stuff people currently own and not have to worry about compensation".
I would go so far as to suggest that calling one's senator about this (assuming the mag ban has been dropped) will not stop the ban, but will train the senator to get in the habit of ignoring gun owners (you went against them last time and won your incumbent seat handily....). I am not convinced calling on a "bump stock only" bill is a good strategy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loogadis: https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/10/11/massachusetts-house-approves-ban-on-bump-stocks
Two interesting take aways:
Looks like he was taking the news coverage of the NY SAFE ACT as a training video.
If true, this part is good news.
Last edited:
MetalgodZ
NES Member
There's no provision for a mag ban in what was just passed, from what I see. You mean this due to Linsky's other bill in play, correct?
Ex post facto - Roughly translated "after the fact". As in "it was legal for you to purchase those bump fire stocks a year ago, but now we're going to criminalize the act of purchase and prosecute you for the purchase you made a year ago," rather than "it was legal for you to possess those a year ago, but it isn't now, so we're going to prosecute you."
One is criminalizing something you did in the past (purchasing an item) whereas the other is criminalizing something you're in the process of doing (possessing).
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,551
Nope. I read the article about the mag ban being removed just after I made that post.
Excellent description of why people are misunderstanding Ex post facto. Rep inbound. A great example is prohibition. It was not ex post facto because people were not prosecuted for having possessed alcohol before prohibition.
I think the key is to complain about the wording. If you compare the amendment that the house passed vs the bill Tarr sponsored, Tarrs bill would ban bumpfire stocks by name. Linskys wording may or may not ban bump fire stocks, may or may not ban other modifications and all depends oh how its determined that rate of fire has increased.
My semi auto has a rate of fire of 1 trigger pull - 1 bullet deployed. Adding a bump fire does not alter the rate of 1 trigger pull = 1 bullet fired.
BTW: I said something to Rep Gentile, his response was "the bill will make de-facto machine guns illegal" he also pointed me to section 121 - ch 140. He seems to think a bump fire stock actually turns the firearm into a machine gun.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,528
- Likes
- 33,551
What does it do for facto machine guns?
Well, if that’s the only impression my post generated, I take it you don’t see much of a solid base with the argument I put forth on the wording?
FYI, not being a wise ass, your one of the few people that have a good ability to translate legal wording and have been involved with legal actions. I was therefore looking for feedback.
Last edited:
Mike S
NES Member
Don't use it, they are a waste of time and will be auto deleted by the recipient.
Make phone calls.
Go sit in your State Senators office until they meet you face to face and explain to you how they are going to fix this cluster**** that the house just passed.
If you care about this issue, or protecting the 2A, please do something besides sending an email that will most likely not be opened.
Last edited:
The mASS legislature has a long history of ignoring proper procedure and the will of the people (not suggesting the people are with us in this case, BTW). The ends justifies the means and all.
HARRYM
NES Member
We are surrounded by Liberals, Governed by Liberals, Led by a Liberal Governor, State's AG is a radical Lesbian Liberal anti-gun activist.......what could go wrong. The fact that I still have my 1968 Wingmaster is a surprise to me. But heck, as long as the NRA doesn't ask me for help I'm good..........
amm5061
NES Member
That being the part that makes no sense, and why Tarr's bill was much more intelligently written. Still don't like it, but I would rather have seen that one pushed through. At least then you'd just need to get your green card to own one.
HARRYM
NES Member
Some times all you can do is try and mitigate the damage....
Similar threads
