not new guy
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 36,092
- Likes
- 54,334
I may be wrong, but if Tarr has their attention on an issue it's a good thing.
-
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
I may be wrong, but if Tarr has their attention on an issue it's a good thing.
Seems they haven open mic in the room. I can't hear anything clearly but some muffled talking in the background. I suppose they all know better than to say something stupid in the big room with the microphone.
Parker Duofold
NES Member
Lucas
NES Member
It’s troublesome that out of 34 Republicans only 3 voted no. Then when you look at the other 31 you find that 28 of them are rated A+ on goal.org, so that rating is no guarantee of support when it matters.
We knew this was coming, and if they were to go against the majority (Which would not have stopped or slowed the bill) they would simply have less pull next time they want to make anything happen. Reality is not as we would wish it, we have to work with what is.
First we must stop vote for a person simply because he /she has A rating with GOAL,NRA,GOA they lie to get your support!
As I said before I was going to run against "Kate Campanale" and was told I wouldn't get the support because she was pro 2A after all she was seen at the gun club.
Lucas
NES Member
Absolutely their no vote would not have stopped it and the reality is all too real. Seeing some republicans in this state become watered down democrats just so they can get some scraps from the majority feels like a sellout. It becomes difficult for them to say anything pro 2A with a vote like that.
not new guy
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 36,092
- Likes
- 54,334
Section 1. Section 121 of Chapter 140 of the general laws as appearing in the 2016 official edition, is hereby amended in line 100 by inserting after the words “submachine gun” the following:-
The term machine gun shall also include any device commonly known as a “bumpstock” or “trigger crank” that is specifically designed to alter or has the effect of altering the performance of a firearm, rifle or shotgun to create or simulate or approximate the fire rate of a fully automatic weapon
It seems that every time I follow one of these, it's never a question of IF it will be inserted but merely a question of how deep![[frown]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/003.gif "Frown [frown]")
its never just the tip.
not new guy
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 36,092
- Likes
- 54,334
It doesn't cover anything other than bump stocks and trigger cranks by my reading of it.
I am sick and tired of this shit too. Pro-2a means just that, you ****ing vote to infringe, you are not pro constitution. Pull-schmool. There is no "pull for the next time". This state is full of Rinos, biggest dickhead Rino included.
If "pro-2a" keep voting against 2a, it doesn't make them pro 2a. I don't give a shit about some convoluted calculations and magical pulls for the next time.
Not that it matters, I'd vote for an honest lay person anytime over a professional politician. **** Republican committee of mAss and all their "conservative" candidates.
Whutmeworry
NES Member
My email to Sen Ross:
Dear Senator Ross,
I am very concerned about the amendment to the MA house budget that was rammed through today by Rep Linsky with absolutely no debate and no public hearing. While I'm deeply saddened by the events that took place last week in Las Vegas, and not at all a fan of "Bump Stocks" in particular, Rep Linsky's amendment is very reckless. The language he uses in the amendment is extremely broad - so much so that it could easily be interpreted to ban very, very basic trigger weight modifications and even routine gun cleaning! Consider this portion of the as-passed language in the amendment:
"...whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less than 3 nor more than 20 years."
Ok. So technically that means that if a Massachusetts gun owner oils he bolt of his/her bolt-action rifle so that it works smoother and thus faster, he/she has "increased the discharge rate" of that firearm and has thus (technically) committed a felony.
This is absolutely ridiculous and also extremely dangerous to liberty. Likewise, the following portion of the amendment is equally dangerous:
"The Secretary of Public Safety shall promulgate regulations by January 1, 2018 concerning the allowability of maintenance and enhancement of rifles, shotguns and firearms consistent with the intent of this section."
So EOPSS basically has free reign to interpret this new, insanely-vague language any way they see fit and then subject honest, law-abiding MA gun owners to possible jail time for a whole new range of arbitrary, ill-conceived, vague, hastily-passed, unenforceable rules.
Please oppose this ridiculousness. Once again I'm no fan of bump-stocks, but the language passed in the house was way, way, WAY too broad and will lead to an infinite amount of abuse by EOPSS and by our attorney general. I'm quite certain of it based on recent history.
Sincerely,
XXXXX
Sen. Ross's response:
Hello XXXX.
I too find the House language problematic, but am looking forward to seeing what the Senate does. I am working on some comparative language that addresses many concerns.
Regards,
Richard Ross
I'm actually impressed he responded to me so quickly. He seems to want to help fix this mess.
Dear Senator Ross,
I am very concerned about the amendment to the MA house budget that was rammed through today by Rep Linsky with absolutely no debate and no public hearing. While I'm deeply saddened by the events that took place last week in Las Vegas, and not at all a fan of "Bump Stocks" in particular, Rep Linsky's amendment is very reckless. The language he uses in the amendment is extremely broad - so much so that it could easily be interpreted to ban very, very basic trigger weight modifications and even routine gun cleaning! Consider this portion of the as-passed language in the amendment:
"...whoever modifies any rifle, shotgun or firearm with the intent to increase its rate of discharge, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison by not less than 3 nor more than 20 years."
Ok. So technically that means that if a Massachusetts gun owner oils he bolt of his/her bolt-action rifle so that it works smoother and thus faster, he/she has "increased the discharge rate" of that firearm and has thus (technically) committed a felony.
This is absolutely ridiculous and also extremely dangerous to liberty. Likewise, the following portion of the amendment is equally dangerous:
"The Secretary of Public Safety shall promulgate regulations by January 1, 2018 concerning the allowability of maintenance and enhancement of rifles, shotguns and firearms consistent with the intent of this section."
So EOPSS basically has free reign to interpret this new, insanely-vague language any way they see fit and then subject honest, law-abiding MA gun owners to possible jail time for a whole new range of arbitrary, ill-conceived, vague, hastily-passed, unenforceable rules.
Please oppose this ridiculousness. Once again I'm no fan of bump-stocks, but the language passed in the house was way, way, WAY too broad and will lead to an infinite amount of abuse by EOPSS and by our attorney general. I'm quite certain of it based on recent history.
Sincerely,
XXXXX
Sen. Ross's response:
Hello XXXX.
I too find the House language problematic, but am looking forward to seeing what the Senate does. I am working on some comparative language that addresses many concerns.
Regards,
Richard Ross
I'm actually impressed he responded to me so quickly. He seems to want to help fix this mess.
Horrible
NES Member
They ****ing better fail! As for Linsky's crap, didn't pass the house (less the mag ban)?
The House passed Linskeys' bumpstock language nearly unanimously (151/3 I think?) in an 11th hour amendment to a budget bill and apparently without debate in the House.
The Senate is supposed to take on the House bill today and send it back with proposed revisions or accept it as written.
The feel from my reading of this thread in the last few pages is that the Senate is pushing back on the House and it's problematic language.
Whether this means that the Linskey language is replaced entirely with that of Senator Tarrs proposed bumpstock ban* or some hybrid/compromise, I don't know.
*Senator Tarrs language treats bumpstocks like MGs: Green card holders could keep them, and current owners could apply for green cards if their CoPs are amendable be able to keep them.
This is sort of a Massified version of the NRA stance, asking BATFE to re-consider the status of bumpstock.
Roll call right now on https://malegislature.gov/Events/Sessions/Detail/2934
I didn't catch what for.
--Edit: It really IS like watching sausage-making.
Recessed again. Whatever that roll call was, it was 37/0 yea.
I didn't catch what for.
--Edit: It really IS like watching sausage-making.
Recessed again. Whatever that roll call was, it was 37/0 yea.
Last edited:
Similar threads
