MA: SEVEN ROUND MAG BAN! This is not a joke.

Mr. Wolf said:
I wonder how many of the people here screaming rebellion over a 7 round mag limit here are already telling the .gov to pound sand and have PMags. Whats the difference between 10 and 20/30 now? Food for thought.
Click to expand...

As a practical matter, there are a whole lot of people out there who object in principle but they'll only put so much work into it if they can sit back and the end of the day and say "well that sucked, but I've still got mine". Instead they overreached, and now everybody is screwed and a lot of people are waking up. If they had just moved the current limit down to 7 while still grandfathering everything that people have now I think it would have stood a much better chance of sailing through the legislature.
 
From me to my Rep:
Brad,
> I assume contacting you and requesting your full opposition to this
> bill is a complete waste of time but just in case, please do
> everything in your power to prevent this bill from seeing the light
> of
> day.
>
>
> An Act To Strengthen and Enhance Firearms Laws in the Commonwealth
>
> Thanks,
> Matt

His Reply:

Hi Matt,

You can be assured that I will not be supporting this bill!

Brad
 
here's one example of spreading the fear that we have to fight. I just posted this but thought I'd add it to this discussion. The media is not helping us at all:

THIS IS WHAT THE ASSOCIATED PRESS LED WITH ON A STORY YESTERDAY:

A picture of an AK-47 with a scope
Caption read:
AT LEAST THREE PEOPLE SHOT AT POPULAR GUN SHOW

Here’s the beginning text of their story:
Officials say three people were wounded when gunfire erupted at a gun show at the North Carolina State fairgrounds.


and here’s what actually happened:
State agriculture department spokesman Brian Long said a 12 gauge shotgun discharged while its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement official to check it at a security entrance. Two bystanders were hit by shotgun pellets and taken to a hospital. A retired deputy sheriff suffered a slight hand wound.


SLIGHT EXAGGERATION
 
Dear Representative Ashe,
I am one of your constituents who has a class A Large Capacity License To Carry Firearms. I am in full support of rational efforts to reduce violent crime. I believe the citizens of Massachusetts who legally own and carry firearms are solidly behind positive action to keep us and our neighbors safe and secure. We demonstrate that every day by responsibly exercising our Constitutional Right.

The requirements I met to legally purchase and carry a firearm are:
· I took two training courses, (and have since taken 2 more for proficiency)
· I submitted fingerprints,
· I underwent a background check by the FBI which was submitted by MA and,
· was issued a photo License To Carry with a personal identification number.

I gladly went through the process to exercise my constitutional right. When I purchase, possess or carry a firearm I ensure that I comply with our laws. Each time I or anyone legally purchase a firearm the following occurs:
· a NICS check (FBI form 4473) and
· a MERCS check (MA form FA-10) are performed on the transaction.
Both checks record and store my MA ID number, the manufacturer, model and serial number of the gun. At the end of the process the Commonwealth and FBI have me and the gun on file.

When a gun is legally transferred between two MA citizens, both must have the appropriate MA license and permit. The gun must already be legally registered with MA and a MERCS FA-10 form is submitted to the state showing the legal transfer.

When I buy ammunition in MA, I am required to show my License To Carry, before the transaction.

It has been my experience that the current system is ample and sufficient. If the information is properly maintained by the Commonwealth then the system functions properly.

I and fellow legal gun owners are concerned about actions the Governor has proposed in his letter of January 16, 2013. The actions do nothing to address the core causal factors and have the potential to increase non-violent crime by turning legal gun owners into unintentional criminals.

In his letter the Governor states that the intent is to strengthen the current law, tackle gun violence and illegal firearm possession. Sadly, his filing does not accomplish the intended objectives.

The filing incorrectly draws a correlation between legal gun ownership and criminal activities. As I understand it the text of Legislation proposed An Act To Strengthen and Enhance Firearms Laws in the Commonwealth lists the following:
1. Names and background information on licensed gun owners transmitted to US Attorney General.
2. New definition of a firearm
3. New laws for gun shows
4. Reduces the capacity of the magazines which makes many of the pre-ban magazines we own illegal.
a.Criminalizing and confiscating our magazines will have no effect on the murder/homicide rate.
5. Re defines an “Assault Weapon” and making pre-ban rifles subject to the new general laws.
a. Criminalizing and confiscating our rifles will have no effect on the murder/homicide rate.
This is proven by FBI statistics from 1992 – 2011. The rates have gone down every year before, during and after the 1994 – 2004 weapons ban in effect for the USA. The ban had no effect on the murder rate.
6. Reduces the number of guns we can legally rent, lease or purchase from five per week to one per month.
a. The unintended consequence being, ranges that rent range guns can only be rented once per month by licensed citizen.

The changes Governor Patrick proposes are well intentioned but sadly misinformed. The reality is, these changes could not have prevented or measurably altered tragedies like Newtown. We will be better served to focus attention and energy on; mental health, violent movies and violent video games.

Legal gun ownership promotes responsibility, discipline and value of life morality. Legal gun owners are a valuable resource that is being wasted. Please understand, legal gun owners are not criminals or victims. We request you don’t try to treat us like one.
 
walterdl said:
Dear Representative Ashe,
I am one of your constituents who has a class A Large Capacity License To Carry Firearms. I am in full support of rational efforts to reduce violent crime. I believe the citizens of Massachusetts who legally own and carry firearms are solidly behind positive action to keep us and our neighbors safe and secure. We demonstrate that every day by responsibly exercising our Constitutional Right.

The requirements I met to legally purchase and carry a firearm are:
· I took two training courses, (and have since taken 2 more for proficiency)
· I submitted fingerprints,
· I underwent a background check by the FBI which was submitted by MA and,
· was issued a photo License To Carry with a personal identification number.

I gladly went through the process to exercise my constitutional right. When I purchase, possess or carry a firearm I ensure that I comply with our laws. Each time I or anyone legally purchase a firearm the following occurs:
· a NICS check (FBI form 4473) and
· a MERCS check (MA form FA-10) are performed on the transaction.
Both checks record and store my MA ID number, the manufacturer, model and serial number of the gun. At the end of the process the Commonwealth and FBI have me and the gun on file.

When a gun is legally transferred between two MA citizens, both must have the appropriate MA license and permit. The gun must already be legally registered with MA and a MERCS FA-10 form is submitted to the state showing the legal transfer.

When I buy ammunition in MA, I am required to show my License To Carry, before the transaction.

It has been my experience that the current system is ample and sufficient. If the information is properly maintained by the Commonwealth then the system functions properly.

I and fellow legal gun owners are concerned about actions the Governor has proposed in his letter of January 16, 2013. The actions do nothing to address the core causal factors and have the potential to increase non-violent crime by turning legal gun owners into unintentional criminals.

In his letter the Governor states that the intent is to strengthen the current law, tackle gun violence and illegal firearm possession. Sadly, his filing does not accomplish the intended objectives.

The filing incorrectly draws a correlation between legal gun ownership and criminal activities. As I understand it the text of Legislation proposed An Act To Strengthen and Enhance Firearms Laws in the Commonwealth lists the following:
1. Names and background information on licensed gun owners transmitted to US Attorney General.
2. New definition of a firearm
3. New laws for gun shows
4. Reduces the capacity of the magazines which makes many of the pre-ban magazines we own illegal.
a.Criminalizing and confiscating our magazines will have no effect on the murder/homicide rate.
5. Re defines an “Assault Weapon” and making pre-ban rifles subject to the new general laws.
a. Criminalizing and confiscating our rifles will have no effect on the murder/homicide rate.
This is proven by FBI statistics from 1992 – 2011. The rates have gone down every year before, during and after the 1994 – 2004 weapons ban in effect for the USA. The ban had no effect on the murder rate.
6. Reduces the number of guns we can legally rent, lease or purchase from five per week to one per month.
a. The unintended consequence being, ranges that rent range guns can only be rented once per month by licensed citizen.

The changes Governor Patrick proposes are well intentioned but sadly misinformed. The reality is, these changes could not have prevented or measurably altered tragedies like Newtown. We will be better served to focus attention and energy on; mental health, violent movies and violent video games.

Legal gun ownership promotes responsibility, discipline and value of life morality. Legal gun owners are a valuable resource that is being wasted. Please understand, legal gun owners are not criminals or victims. We request you don’t try to treat us like one.
Click to expand...

Wow, that is one of the most well written letters I have read to date! Hopefully Ashe takes the time to read, and absorb your words!
 
Feel free to use any part or all of it. We are in this together. Hopefully, someone will improve what I have written. I personally don't plan to sit by and let events overtake me. As my old USMC DI said "Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way." I will lead and follow but not get out of the way. I have since followed up with a phone message to his office to arrange a time to talk.
 
Dr. CCW said:
Just because they do, doesn't mean they are permitted to. It is tolerated and nobody raises hell about it. The tiny fraction of Americans with disabilities raise hell every day for compliance with the ADA. Sometimes, this is one person in a town. When that happens, there is instant compliance. Unfortunately because our cause is not popular, we have to have numbers and yell our demands louder. This is no different than discrimination against a person of color in an all white predominantly racist community. Just because politicians in that hypothetical community don't enforce civil rights doesn't mean they are permitted to violate a person's civil rights. Once we decide we do not uphold the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution, it is fair game to violate the rights of anyone we choose.
Click to expand...

What's different about these Rights, is, we aren't like Americans with disabilities. They had the population and the media on their side.

We have a media filled with Gun-Haters (who obey Obama) and they will train the population to hate us.
The demonization of gun owners has just started. Get ready to be hated by millions of MA residents. By MA school children!

The left loves an easy target. It changes the subject from real problems, when they can place the blame for everything bad, one small group.
Kinda like Hitler demonized the Jews.
 
walterdl said:
Dear Representative Ashe,
I am one of your constituents who has a class A Large Capacity License To Carry Firearms. I am in full support of rational efforts to reduce violent crime. I believe the citizens of Massachusetts who legally own and carry firearms are solidly behind positive action to keep us and our neighbors safe and secure. We demonstrate that every day by responsibly exercising our Constitutional Right.

The requirements I met to legally purchase and carry a firearm are:
· I took two training courses, (and have since taken 2 more for proficiency)
· I submitted fingerprints,
· I underwent a background check by the FBI which was submitted by MA and,
· was issued a photo License To Carry with a personal identification number.

I gladly went through the process to exercise my constitutional right. When I purchase, possess or carry a firearm I ensure that I comply with our laws. Each time I or anyone legally purchase a firearm the following occurs:
· a NICS check (FBI form 4473) and
· a MERCS check (MA form FA-10) are performed on the transaction.
Both checks record and store my MA ID number, the manufacturer, model and serial number of the gun. At the end of the process the Commonwealth and FBI have me and the gun on file.

When a gun is legally transferred between two MA citizens, both must have the appropriate MA license and permit. The gun must already be legally registered with MA and a MERCS FA-10 form is submitted to the state showing the legal transfer.

When I buy ammunition in MA, I am required to show my License To Carry, before the transaction.

It has been my experience that the current system is ample and sufficient. If the information is properly maintained by the Commonwealth then the system functions properly.

I and fellow legal gun owners are concerned about actions the Governor has proposed in his letter of January 16, 2013. The actions do nothing to address the core causal factors and have the potential to increase non-violent crime by turning legal gun owners into unintentional criminals.

In his letter the Governor states that the intent is to strengthen the current law, tackle gun violence and illegal firearm possession. Sadly, his filing does not accomplish the intended objectives.

The filing incorrectly draws a correlation between legal gun ownership and criminal activities. As I understand it the text of Legislation proposed An Act To Strengthen and Enhance Firearms Laws in the Commonwealth lists the following:
1. Names and background information on licensed gun owners transmitted to US Attorney General.
2. New definition of a firearm
3. New laws for gun shows
4. Reduces the capacity of the magazines which makes many of the pre-ban magazines we own illegal.
a.Criminalizing and confiscating our magazines will have no effect on the murder/homicide rate.
5. Re defines an “Assault Weapon” and making pre-ban rifles subject to the new general laws.
a. Criminalizing and confiscating our rifles will have no effect on the murder/homicide rate.
This is proven by FBI statistics from 1992 – 2011. The rates have gone down every year before, during and after the 1994 – 2004 weapons ban in effect for the USA. The ban had no effect on the murder rate.
6. Reduces the number of guns we can legally rent, lease or purchase from five per week to one per month.
a. The unintended consequence being, ranges that rent range guns can only be rented once per month by licensed citizen.

The changes Governor Patrick proposes are well intentioned but sadly misinformed. The reality is, these changes could not have prevented or measurably altered tragedies like Newtown. We will be better served to focus attention and energy on; mental health, violent movies and violent video games.

Legal gun ownership promotes responsibility, discipline and value of life morality. Legal gun owners are a valuable resource that is being wasted. Please understand, legal gun owners are not criminals or victims. We request you don’t try to treat us like one.
Click to expand...


very well written thank you for posting
 
walterdl said:
Dear Representative Ashe,
I am one of your constituents who has a class A Large Capacity License To Carry Firearms. I am in full support of rational efforts to reduce violent crime. I believe the citizens of Massachusetts who legally own and carry firearms are solidly behind positive action to keep us and our neighbors safe and secure. We demonstrate that every day by responsibly exercising our Constitutional Right.

The requirements I met to legally purchase and carry a firearm are:
· I took two training courses, (and have since taken 2 more for proficiency)
· I submitted fingerprints,
· I underwent a background check by the FBI which was submitted by MA and,
· was issued a photo License To Carry with a personal identification number.

I gladly went through the process to exercise my constitutional right. When I purchase, possess or carry a firearm I ensure that I comply with our laws. Each time I or anyone legally purchase a firearm the following occurs:
· a NICS check (FBI form 4473) and
· a MERCS check (MA form FA-10) are performed on the transaction.
Both checks record and store my MA ID number, the manufacturer, model and serial number of the gun. At the end of the process the Commonwealth and FBI have me and the gun on file.

When a gun is legally transferred between two MA citizens, both must have the appropriate MA license and permit. The gun must already be legally registered with MA and a MERCS FA-10 form is submitted to the state showing the legal transfer.

When I buy ammunition in MA, I am required to show my License To Carry, before the transaction.

It has been my experience that the current system is ample and sufficient. If the information is properly maintained by the Commonwealth then the system functions properly.

I and fellow legal gun owners are concerned about actions the Governor has proposed in his letter of January 16, 2013. The actions do nothing to address the core causal factors and have the potential to increase non-violent crime by turning legal gun owners into unintentional criminals.

In his letter the Governor states that the intent is to strengthen the current law, tackle gun violence and illegal firearm possession. Sadly, his filing does not accomplish the intended objectives.

The filing incorrectly draws a correlation between legal gun ownership and criminal activities. As I understand it the text of Legislation proposed An Act To Strengthen and Enhance Firearms Laws in the Commonwealth lists the following:
1. Names and background information on licensed gun owners transmitted to US Attorney General.
2. New definition of a firearm
3. New laws for gun shows
4. Reduces the capacity of the magazines which makes many of the pre-ban magazines we own illegal.
a.Criminalizing and confiscating our magazines will have no effect on the murder/homicide rate.
5. Re defines an “Assault Weapon” and making pre-ban rifles subject to the new general laws.
a. Criminalizing and confiscating our rifles will have no effect on the murder/homicide rate.
This is proven by FBI statistics from 1992 – 2011. The rates have gone down every year before, during and after the 1994 – 2004 weapons ban in effect for the USA. The ban had no effect on the murder rate.
6. Reduces the number of guns we can legally rent, lease or purchase from five per week to one per month.
a. The unintended consequence being, ranges that rent range guns can only be rented once per month by licensed citizen.

The changes Governor Patrick proposes are well intentioned but sadly misinformed. The reality is, these changes could not have prevented or measurably altered tragedies like Newtown. We will be better served to focus attention and energy on; mental health, violent movies and violent video games.

Legal gun ownership promotes responsibility, discipline and value of life morality. Legal gun owners are a valuable resource that is being wasted. Please understand, legal gun owners are not criminals or victims. We request you don’t try to treat us like one.
Click to expand...

I like it, but I'd leave out "well intentioned but". I can only conclude that his intentions are malicious and targeted at law abiding gun owners.
 
Too dangerous!

Ben Cartwright SASS said:
I have been trying to determine what “readily modifiable” means in regards to magazines. I looked to the definitions of Approved Weapons in the MA laws to get a feel for what they consider readily modifiable. On a gun it is “immediately capable of being altered” so by that standard a magazine with more than 10 rounds that was pinned or pop riveted to only hold 10 rounds would not be immediately modifiable without a drill or other tools.

We will have to wait to see the definition if the law passes but I think we can look the current definitions and my feeling is that we could modify the larger than 10 rounders

I looked up the definitions under Chapter 501 CMR 7.00 the Approved Weapons Rosters in section 7.02 Definitions I find the following
Readily Modifiable to Accept a Large Capacity Feeding Device means any firearm, rifle or shotgun immediately capable of being altered so as to accept a large capacity feeding device as defined in M.G.L. c. 140/121; provided, however that said feeding device is fully or partially inserted into the weapon or attached thereto, or is under the direct control of a person who also has direct control of a weapon capable of accepting said feeding device.
Click to expand...

If history is any guide, there will be no clear definition of what's easy to alter. They will leave those details to the police and courts.


What you have to understand, is these laws aren't about crime prevention. They are intended to be so threatening to citizens,
they will be discouraged from even wanting to own a firearm.

What they want is this: "If you don't dot every 'i' or double lock every gun & bullet, we will destroy your life completely".
That kinda makes a lot of folks say, forget owning a gun! Too dangerous!
 
Make_MA_2A_Compliant said:
Rights are rights. The only way you lose your rights is if you chose to lay them down. If all guns are made illegal, you still have the right to have them for self defense, unless you roll over and turn them in.

People need to stop accusing the government of taking away their rights and start looking in the mirror and asking why their rights aren't important enough to retain.
Click to expand...

When they came for the guns, I was afraid of dying, so I did nothing.
When they came for the knifes, I was still afraid. They had guns.
When they came to pull out all my teeth, I screamed in pain..
When they came to cut out my tongue, I couldn't even bite them..
It was at that moment, I realized why they had pulled out my teeth.
 
walterdl,
Great letter. I used yours as a base and added how I’m also a licensed collector with a Curio and Relic Federal Firearm License. The proposed change to purchase of one per month would prohibit my ability to purchase matching sets or small collections as a federally licensed collector of Curio and Relic Firearms. The letters to my Senator and Representative will go out in the mail tomorrow.

- - - Updated - - -

walterdl,
Great letter. I used yours as a base and added how I’m also a licensed collector with a Curio and Relic Federal Firearm License. The proposed change to purchase of one per month would prohibit my ability to purchase matching sets or small collections as a federally licensed collector of Curio and Relic Firearms. The letters to my Senator and Representative will go out in the mail tomorrow.
 
Massachusetts has already lost 80% of gun owners

Xringer said:
If history is any guide, there will be no clear definition of what's easy to alter. They will leave those details to the police and courts.


What you have to understand, is these laws aren't about crime prevention. They are intended to be so threatening to citizens,
they will be discouraged from even wanting to own a firearm.

What they want is this: "If you don't dot every 'i' or double lock every gun & bullet, we will destroy your life completely".
That kinda makes a lot of folks say, forget owning a gun! Too dangerous!
Click to expand...

Due to Chap 140 in 1998 Mass has already lost 80% of licensed gun owners, before 1998 there where 1.2 million licensed gun owners now there are 260,000, so Chap 140 did what the left wanted, but the legal people by 80%, OF COURSE crime went down 80% as well, RIGHT? I had heard that violent crime is up 400% since 1998.
Yes they want us all to fold and go away.
 
Ben Cartwright SASS said:
Due to Chap 140 in 1998 Mass has already lost 80% of licensed gun owners, before 1998 there where 1.2 million licensed gun owners now there are 260,000, so Chap 140 did what the left wanted, but the legal people by 80%, OF COURSE crime went down 80% as well, RIGHT? I had heard that violent crime is up 400% since 1998.
Yes they want us all to fold and go away.
Click to expand...

By your data, the MA licensed gun owners are just about 4% of the state's population, maybe around 6% of all adults? That's why the pols can essentially ignor us.

Assume there are 6.6 million legal guns in the state (1 gun per resident), an average legal owner owns 25 guns.

- - - Updated - - -

Ben Cartwright SASS said:
Due to Chap 140 in 1998 Mass has already lost 80% of licensed gun owners, before 1998 there where 1.2 million licensed gun owners now there are 260,000, so Chap 140 did what the left wanted, but the legal people by 80%, OF COURSE crime went down 80% as well, RIGHT? I had heard that violent crime is up 400% since 1998.
Yes they want us all to fold and go away.
Click to expand...

By your data, the MA licensed gun owners are just about 4% of the state's population, maybe around 6% of all adults? That's why the pols can essentially ignor us.

Assume there are 6.6 million legal guns in the state (1 gun per resident), an average legal owner owns 25 guns.
 
Interesting numbers. Are the totals of 1.2 million in 1998 and 260 K today verifiable? People on television are raising concern over the sudden rise in applications for gun licenses and permits. It looks as though there is more of a renewed interest.
 
walterdl said:
Interesting numbers. Are the totals of 1.2 million in 1998 and 260 K today verifiable? People on television are raising concern over the sudden rise in applications for gun licenses and permits. It looks as though there is more of a renewed interest.
Click to expand...

I have heard those numbers from GOAL, I think the current total is something like 262,000. Part of the high numbers before were the lifetime FID cards, people got them when they were young.

In talking with 3 neighbors, none of whom own guns and have no desire to own one, they are solidly pro 2nd Amendment, so our numbers are greater than the number of licenses.
 
if there was any semblance of sanity to the process here, the license holders stat would be way higher, wonder what the applicant number currently is...

- - - Updated - - -

if there was any semblance of sanity to the process here, the license holders stat would be way higher, wonder what the applicant number currently is...
 
Folks,
I took the already posted letter and restructured it a bit. Feel free to post comments on it.

Dear Representative XXXX,
I am one of your constituents, holding a Class-A License To Carry Firearms. I am in full support of rational efforts to reduce violent crime and believe Massachusetts citizens who legally own and carry firearms are fully behind positive action to keep us and our neighbors safe and secure.
I am contacting you to raise my, and fellow legal gun owners’, concerns about Governor’s proposed legislation titled “An Act To Strengthen and Enhance Firearms Laws in the Commonwealth”. The proposed actions do nothing to address the core causal factors and have the potential to increase non-violent crime by turning legal gun owners into unintentional criminals.
We, the law abiding, already follow the law and demonstrate our commitment to safety every day by responsibly exercising our Constitutional Right. To start, we had to meet the following requirements to be issued an LTC for legally purchasing and carrying a firearm:
• Complete certified training courses
• Submitted fingerprints and photographs
• Undergo a background check by the FBI
I have gladly gone through the process to exercise my constitutional right while supporting efforts for reducing violence. Also, I ensure that I comply with our laws whenever I purchase, possess, or carry a firearm.

For the record:
• Legal firearm transfers in MA are already recorded on MERCS FA-10 forms and submitted to the state. The form already captures the transferor’s and transferee’s personal info (first and last name, address, License number, etc.). Dealer transfers are also subject to an NICS check (FBI form 4473) and a MERCS check. At the end of the transferring process, the Commonwealth and FBI receive both my personal and the gun’s information (make, model, serial number, caliber, etc.). Also, any person who legally purchases ammunition is required to show a valid License To Carry, before the transaction.
Keep in mind that illegals transfer will not be recorded regardless of the law and the newly proposed legislation will do nothing to change that.
• Massachusetts already has a restriction on magazine capacity. We are already limiting magazines to 10 rounds. Reducing this limit further to seven will have no meaningful result, other than turning the currently lawful owners of 10 round magazines to potential villains, not mentioning the final damage and confusion for owners and law enforcement personnel.

It has been my experience that the current system is ample and sufficient to regulate lawful ownership of firearms. It has also been my experience that the state has been unable to provide practical ways for the process to functions (i.e. availability of FA-10 forms), hence hindering the process that is already in place by current laws.
In his letter the Governor states that the intent is to strengthen the current law, tackle gun violence and illegal firearm possession. Sadly, his filing does not accomplish any of the intended objectives.

The filing incorrectly draws a correlation between legal gun ownership and criminal activities while imposing financial harm and confusion with no gain.

The changes Governor Patrick proposes might seem well intentioned but are sadly misinformed. The reality is, these changes could not have prevented or measurably altered tragedies like Newtown. We will be better served to focus attention and energy on; mental health and education.
Legal gun ownership promotes responsibility, discipline and value of life morality. Legal gun owners are a valuable resource that is being wasted. Please understand, legal gun owners are not criminals or victims. We request you don't try to treat us like one.

I ask that you do not support Governor Patrick’s proposal. It only adversely affects legal and responsible gun ownership.

name
address
town
Click to expand...
 
My reps response to my email (used one goal posted on twitter)

*
Thank you for writing with your concerns about the proposed gun control legislation here in Massachusetts. As a citizen with a Class A License to Carry, I certainly understand that a knee-jerk reaction punishing lawful and responsible firearms owners and creating new barriers to ownership will not prevent tragedies like the one in Newtown, CT.
*
Out of all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, only the Second Amendment ends with a clause stating "This right shall not be infringed". Clearly, this was of great importance to our founding fathers. Massachusetts presently has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. I don't believe that further restricting the rights of lawful and responsible owners will make us any safer.
*
I also want to let you know I'm working in conjunction with Representative Peterson to co-sponsor the GOAL legislation. As an elected official it's my job to speak on behalf of my constituents, so I want to thank you again for taking the time to share your input; and assure you that your voice is being heard on Beacon Hill.
*
Yours Truly,
Jay
 
Glock23ONME said:
My reps response to my email (used one goal posted on twitter)

*
Thank you for writing with your concerns about the proposed gun control legislation here in Massachusetts. As a citizen with a Class A License to Carry, I certainly understand that a knee-jerk reaction punishing lawful and responsible firearms owners and creating new barriers to ownership will not prevent tragedies like the one in Newtown, CT.
*
Out of all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, only the Second Amendment ends with a clause stating "This right shall not be infringed". Clearly, this was of great importance to our founding fathers. Massachusetts presently has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. I don't believe that further restricting the rights of lawful and responsible owners will make us any safer.
*
I also want to let you know I'm working in conjunction with Representative Peterson to co-sponsor the GOAL legislation. As an elected official it's my job to speak on behalf of my constituents, so I want to thank you again for taking the time to share your input; and assure you that your voice is being heard on Beacon Hill.
*
Yours Truly,
Jay
Click to expand...

Nice. Who is the Rep? We need to get that on the spreadsheet that Sixer has been maintaining via the other thread titled "positive responses from reps", or something along those lines.
 
Last edited:
Ive already written my reps and the president/vice pres. twice. They have sent me email back stating that they understand we are concerned and will continue to try and push through stricter gun control laws. WTF! Has anyone else experienced this? They obviously did not read my mail or they just dont care. Either way it is not right! They are not representing us and we need to change this! Stay on top of your reps and CALL THEM.
 

Similar threads

Does FN Five-seven have preban 20 round mags?
2
Replies
34
Views
555
Agnotology
Agnotology
Is this a new term? Zombie guns.
Replies
9
Views
365
hminsky
H
What kind of Beretta 1934 is this?
Replies
1
Views
74
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
Is there a reason.......
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
I'm not sure what to think of this
2
Replies
33
Views
694
chris_1001
chris_1001
Back
Top Bottom