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

[cekim]

I wonder if the fudds will actually take their blaze orange hats off for this and join us for a change, as their guns are finally in the chopping block as well.


"Send it" like chinalfr from my can attached to a string from another can in the lair of the dark lord kramdar.

It is important to impress upon them that this is proof that they are coming for them as well...

Yesterday it was 10, today it is 7, tomorrow it will be 1.

All the BS we've heard over the years from pols about "I support your 2A rights and sportsmen and hunters. I am not trying to take your guns." are being exposed for the blatant lies they have always been.

We need to call those who spew these lies, literally and figuratively and force them to explain themselves.

We also need to make sure it costs them their job.

 

[DrNVP]

we need to be calling and emailing every state legislator that has at least a B rating or higher from GOAL. These are the people we need to explain how absolutely draconian this proposed bill is. Also, do realize that NES is a very small percentage of MA gun owners. We need to be getting the word out to clubs and other people who do not have any awareness or presence on NES.

http://goal.org/candidate-ratings.html

Find them and contact them.

 

[Parker Duofold]

I live in Haverhill and just called my State Rep. I am the FIRST Haverhill resident that has called on this issue. C'mon Merrimack Valley, make the call.

Rep. Brian Dempsey
Phone: 617-722-2990
Fax: 617-722-2215
Email: [email protected]

Methuen
Rep. Linda Campbell
Phone: 617-722-2877
Fax: 617-722-9278
Email: [email protected]

 

[cekim]

You know what we also need?

All those gun owning Democrat voters out there being sheepishly quiet for having been caught in this lie about your party need to contact the reps you voted for. You told us that we were being alarmist and your party was not to blame for taking "the guns" and we needed to relax since "Gun Control is a dead issue."

Well, we see the truth now. I don't need an apology, I need you to go back to the people you elected and explain to them that your vote did not include permission to do this. Your voice as someone who voted for them means much more to them than mine that they know won't bring them a vote.

You owe it to your fellow citizens of this nation and state to make up for what you have brought on us.

As Republicans, we owe it to everyone to punish our party for the same gun-grabbing ways and apathy, but it isn't out party in control and proposing these laws.

LiberalGunClub - this means YOU!

 

[PaulD]

On my way into work today, I stopped and talked to two cops in two different towns. My message to them was if you don't agree with this, please talk to your fellow officers because it will affect them as well. Both basically said they can't talk politics on the job but they didn't think this will reduce crime and further, Deval would have went for zero if he could have.

So, is there any chance we can get the police unions on our side for this?

In addition, I've already left a message at my state rep's office and talked to non-gun owning friends and gotten them to call.

 

[ntomsw]

I hope this shit gets shot down when it comes time to vote on it, and then they can never do it again. I hope it blows up in their faces.

 

[Projectile]

I work with some Fudds, is there a plain language summary of this specific proposed law anywhere, I want to pass it along to them.

I mentioned this too them but they didn't "quite" get it.

 

[leewongfei]

That is NOT correct. They are bound to protection the constitution (both state and federal) above all else. It's part of the oath of office they took.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

I think you missed my point..Im trying to get more people involved. If they cant make the rally on saturday, ket tem at least try to call their representative.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

I work with some Fudds, is there a plain language summary of this specific proposed law anywhere, I want to pass it along to them.

I mentioned this too them but they didn't "quite" get it.

tell them plain and simple, they cant bury their heads in the sand anymore, this will eventually affect them. Maybe Not Today but Tomorrow. The Government is going take piece by piece until there is nothing left.

 

[cekim]

I work with some Fudds, is there a plain language summary of this specific proposed law anywhere, I want to pass it along to them.

I mentioned this too them but they didn't "quite" get it.

Unfortunately, the press reports are inaccurate. The "best" information is that provided by Patrick's administration:
http://www.mass.gov/governor/legisl...-to-strengthen-and-enhance-firearms-laws.html

A quick summary of the worst of it is:

SECTION 24. Said section 131M of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out, in line 3, the word “1994.” and inserting in place thereof the following words:- 1994; or (ii) a large capacity feeding device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition; or (iii) a large capacity feeding device that such person lawfully possessed before the effective date of this act that has a capacity of, or that can readily be restored or converted to accept, more than seven but no more than ten rounds of ammunition, where such device contains more than seven rounds of ammunition.”
...
Any large capacity feeding device that has or can readily be restored or converted to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition that was legally possessed by an individual prior to the enactment of this act must be sold or otherwise lawfully disposed of within one year of the act’s effective date. Such large capacity feeding devices may only be sold or disposed of to a purchaser authorized to possess such weapons.

This makes the "hi-cap" limit 7 rounds and requires sale or disposal of "pre-ban" feeding devices within one year of passage.

Then there is "One Gun A Month":

SECTION 11. Section 123 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the first sentence in the third paragraph the following sentence: - No person licensed under section 122 shall sell, rent or lease, to another person, other than to an exempt person under subsection (c) of section 131E, more than 1 rifle, shotgun, firearm, machine gun, large capacity weapon or large capacity feeding device in any 30-day period.

And no more FTF transfers - dealer must be involved:

SECTION 12. Section 128A of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by adding the following 2 sentences:- Any sale or transfer conducted under this section shall comply with section 131E and shall take place at the location of a dealer licensed under section 122, who shall transmit the information required by this section for the purchases and sales by utilizing the electronic verification link established by the commissioner of the department of criminal justice information services. A licensed dealer may charge the seller a fee not to exceed $25 for each sale or transfer electronically submitted on behalf of the seller to the department of criminal justice information services.

There are also further restrictions on gun shows and additional intrusion on Mental Healthcare. The summary at the top of that page covers that.

 

[calsdad]

Sounds like this law will make all that ammo you bought from CMP - already packaged into enbloc clips - a felony count - one count for each 8 round clip?

 

[ntomsw]

Cekim, so those are the 3 "main" things here to be worried about, or are there many more?

 

[cekim]

Cekim, so those are the 3 "main" things here to be worried about, or are there many more?

The whole thing is crap, but I am, sadly, assuming that only those with mental health issues are going to be concerned about those changes.

We should all be concerned about what is going on with mental health both Federally and at the State as many have discussed, even those of us who have never so much as popped a pill could be targeted in the future as has happened in other police states which enacted similar laws.

We should also be concerned about creating a litany of new laws (as this bill does as well) since these will no doubt be abused in the plea-bargain bullying that this state routinely uses to get people to plead out to things they did not do.

Then there is the increase in penalty for possession on school grounds (a crime that does not have a David Gregory clause for intent or malice of forethought).

It mentions armor piercing ammo as well in the summary, but I haven't found the exact clause that they are referencing.

So, I was trying to hit the highlights, but really there isn't anything in the bill that we should not oppose.

Then there is Linksy's bill...

 

[DJF3864]

I have sent a letter to both my rep (Miceli) and senator (Finegold).

 

[ntomsw]

The whole thing is crap, but I am, sadly, assuming that only those with mental health issues are going to be concerned about those changes.

We should all be concerned about what is going on with mental health both Federally and at the State as many have discussed, even those of us who have never so much as popped a pill could be targeted in the future as has happened in other police states which enacted similar laws.

We should also be concerned about creating a litany of new laws (as this bill does as well) since these will no doubt be abused in the plea-bargain bullying that this state routinely uses to get people to plead out to things they did not do.

So, I was trying to hit the highlights, but really there isn't anything in the bill that we should not oppose.

Understood. I could have worded that differently. I knew what I wanted to say, but the internet sucks for getting that point out sometimes. Thank you.

 

[Chrisg67]

letters sent to Rosa and Flanagan

 

[Projectile]

The whole thing is crap, but I am, sadly, assuming that only those with mental health issues are going to be concerned about those changes.

We should all be concerned about what is going on with mental health both Federally and at the State as many have discussed, even those of us who have never so much as popped a pill could be targeted in the future as has happened in other police states which enacted similar laws.

We should also be concerned about creating a litany of new laws (as this bill does as well) since these will no doubt be abused in the plea-bargain bullying that this state routinely uses to get people to plead out to things they did not do.

Then there is the increase in penalty for possession on school grounds (a crime that does not have a David Gregory clause for intent or malice of forethought).

It mentions armor piercing ammo as well in the summary, but I haven't found the exact clause that they are referencing.

So, I was trying to hit the highlights, but really there isn't anything in the bill that we should not oppose.

Then there is Linksy's bill...

Thanks man, I don't want to overwhelm them and I already told them how urgent this is, but again, if they see it in writing and see how they are impacted it might wake them up.

 

[hv55maxx]

emailed reps of current area and former since my parents still live there (may live in that area again sometime), also emailed my club with the link to try and spread the word more

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The whole thing is crap, but I am, sadly, assuming that only those with mental health issues are going to be concerned about those changes.

It depends on what you mean by "mental health issue". It's one thing to have a process to DQ people who are a documented danger, and quite another to say "if you have ever been prescribed prozak you are unqualified for gun ownership". Plus, doing the later, will prevent gun owners from ever daring to seek professional help.

As to the 7/10 thing - this is a masterful stroke on Patrick's part. If he gets it, he has crossed the line into "confiscation" - one that prior to NY/MA has been pretty much uncrossed except for fringe cases (sawed off NFA shotguns used to be MA legal, but were banned with no grandfathering, as well as some bans in NYC). If he does not get it, he has created a situation where any other situation is "less bad" and appears like a concession.

As to the taking of private property - two issues are going to be (a) is compensation necessary, and (b) If allowing out of state fire sale a legitimate substitution for compensation?

 

[Xringer]

If passed, this is going to kick up the price of affordable houses in NH.. Since people can't afford to quit their jobs here in MA.
Just yesterday, I was online, looking at Double-Wide prefabs in Nashua, and I've been retired for about 6 years!

 

[180 GRAIN FMJ]

This nonsense would effectively make the most common of all semi-autos useless: The Ruger 10/22. I don't believe they even have 5 round mags for it.

 

[cekim]

Understood. I could have worded that differently. I knew what I wanted to say, but the internet sucks for getting that point out sometimes. Thank you.

It is tough to prioritize the defenses these days since the attack is so broad and from so many directions.

As I said shortly after the school shooting, you can tell that they have no intention of making anyone safer, but rather pushing their long standing anti-gun agenda, because their proposals have so little to do with the tragedy they are citing.

Regarding the Mental Health issue, there really is little they can do with young people who are transitioning from non-violent to violent behavior without profound violation of all of our due process rights. We are asking them to create a "pre-Crime" division and predict which people are going to become violent and which are not.

The brutal reality here is that only those closest to the ill person can do anything to stop these tragedies within the confines of a free society. The ability and DUTY of friends and family is critical to balancing freedom and the realities of mental illness. They can be given tools in the healthcare arena, and frankly, I think the need for "consequence free" commitment is MUCH more important than better reporting and tracking of "potential" threats.

These actions taken in this bill are moving in the exact wrong direction as they are creating disincentive for the family and friends of the mentally ill to "help" them get treatment. The idea that you are potentially putting a scarlet "N" (for nut) on your loved one has to scare anyone from aggressively persuading or forcing a loved one to get help.

If all these progressives really wanted to help people, they would be pushing for iron clad privacy, not disclosure and networking.

Sadly though, we know they don't want to help anyone but themselves and in their short-sighted ways, they will help the rest of us on trains to camps if they think that makes them safer.

 

[cekim]

It depends on what you mean by "mental health issue". It's one thing to have a process to DQ people who are a documented danger, and quite another to say "if you have ever been prescribed prozak you are unqualified for gun ownership". Plus, doing the later, will prevent gun owners from ever daring to seek professional help.

See above, I think we take a wrong turn if we get dragged into the details of that debate.

The only answer compatible with a free society is iron-clad, "confessing to a priest" like privacy laws WRT to mental health and strict and individualized due process to do otherwise. There needs to be a very specific and lengthy process to deprive people of their civil rights outside of true exigence so that every avenue of abuse is shutdown under the bright lights of due process.

That would not preclude doctors taking action in "exigent circumstances," but as with any exigence, that action should be temporary in nature and record of it sealed. Any thoughts of making longer term determinations from that "immediate" action or long term pattern, should be an individualized, well represented court proceeding with all the avenues of appeal and burden on the state.

Locking up these records and putting up hurdles to the state for long term/permanent abridgement of civil rights provides the medical community with the tools they need to treat people without either their or their patients' concern for "unintended consequences" of many forms from future employment, to asset seizures, to liberty itself.

 

[atilla]

letters sent to Rosa and Flanagan

unsure of rosa and flanagan--she does come to the legislative shoots religiously so i am expecting a positive response from her. i hope.

 

[cekim]

unsure of rosa and flanagan--she does come to the legislative shoots religiously so i am expecting a positive response from her. i hope.

I cannot stress enough how unconcerned people should be about their response in deciding whether or not to contact them. Even if they are the most bitter anti, you need to contact them.

 

[Xringer]

I was just thinking about my Ruger 10/22 mags. My old Kel-Tec P11 & etc.
Well, I've been thinking about moving to Texas for a while now.
If this crap passes, color me gone.
I've been living here and paying taxes since 1965, that's long enough.

I just hate leaving my wife and kid. Been happily married since 1968.
There is no way my wife will leave her house (being here since 73).
Me leaving is going to break their hearts. Mine too.
But, I don't want to be jailed or murdered by the state of MA.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I think the need for "consequence free" commitment is MUCH more important than better reporting and tracking of "potential" threats.

True, but given the history of skirting the concept of ex post facto, I would never be confident that any assurance of "consequence free" would not be retroactively reversed in the future.

 

[Cap]

This whole "you can load a 10 round mag with 7 rounds" is the most retarded thing I've ever heard of... thats like enforcing filling gas tanks to only 3/4 .

 

[Projectile]

"It is tough to prioritize the defenses these days since the attack is so broad and from so many directions."



When the **** are we going to wake up. This is all so ****ing predictable, they are overloading the system, no breathing room, no time to react, no time to organize and oppose.

From the playbook: RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

They said they just want to get evil looking assault rifles off the streets, but we know that is a lie, we must get the message out that ALL semi-autos would be illegal under this law since nobobdy makes a 7 round magazine.

What percent of guns would be neutered under this bill.

We need to email allies, Howie Carr show, Drudge, Herald, every rod and gun club in the state, and explain in simple terms the devestating impact this 7 round limit would have on lawful gun owners.

 

[LittleCalm]

The way I read the hi cap provisions is that you must get rid of over 10 rounders. 8-10 rounder in possession now would be grandfathered but you cannot load more than 7 rounds into them. Going forward, you could only buy new mags of 7 or less.