Many new MA gun control bills updated

I find it funny that if you read the head line of some of the purposed anti bills then read what is actualy purposed, its seems a bit diffrent, and you can see why you cant take anything they say at face value.

You also find a good reasons to slap the shit out of any government official who votes for a bill then says "well i dident actualy read the bill"
 
what is the next step after the Public Safety committee? Are there more committees or does it go to the floor for a vote?
 
JFC. It's always the same legislators that come up with this shit.

I know the "one gun a month" bill has come up before and we have defeated it. Has anything like Linsky's bills for insurance and off-site storage ever come up?

Unfortunately, they have all the momentum right now
 
what is the next step after the Public Safety committee? Are there more committees or does it go to the floor for a vote?

The Joint Committee for Public Safety and Homeland Security is the one that is considering these bills. They will do one of the following:

1. Declare that the bill ought to pass. (Favorable)
2. Declare that the bill ought not to pass. (Adverse)
3. Nothing. (Further Study.)

In the first two scenarios, it then goes to the houses to amend and vote - if they want. In the third case, it 'dies in committee'. The third case is both the best and the worst scenario. It doesn't give us any closure, but it allows the legislators to avoid actually voting for it, so they come out clean, and can tell their constituents whatever the hell they want. The first two scenarios are a mixed bag, because you really don't know how it could end up. The other downside to the third case is that you don't know how it ends until the session ends, which i think is the end of the year. (I am not an expert; this is my understanding of the process.)

You are never going to get a happy ending in Massachusetts, so the best you can hope for is no ending.
 
Last edited:
If #1 or #2 happen, I can't imagine the legislature not wanting to vote on it. It would only end up bad for us, no matter how it is amended.
 
Bills Currently Filed at MA State House

More gun control bills are posted and being sent to committee. I know most people know about Deval and Linsky's bills, but some of these new ones are just as bad.

In Linsky's bill, can anyone discern what would happen to large capacity weapons? Section 'a' defines Class A as:

a) A Class A license shall entitle a holder thereof to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and
6 carry: (i) firearms, including ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes, subject to such
7 restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority deems
8 proper; and (ii) non-large capacity rifles and shotguns, including ammunition therefor, for all
9 lawful purposes; provided, however, that the licensing authority may impose such restrictions
10 relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms, rifles and shotguns as it deems proper. A
11 violation of a restriction imposed by the licensing authority under the provisions of this
12 paragraph shall be cause for suspension or revocation and shall, unless otherwise provided, be
13 punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000; provided, however, that the
14 provisions of section 10 of chapter 269 shall not apply to such violation

Later in the bill....

297 (s) No license issued under this section shall permit the licensee to purchase, rent, lease, borrow,
298 posses or carry any assault weapon, large-capacity weapon, or large capacity feeding device, as
299 defined in Section 121 of Chapter 140, except while on the premises of a club or facility with an
300 on-site shooting range or gallery with a Class A license issued by the Colonel of the State Police
301 pursuant to paragraph (a

And again later...

888 No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity
889 feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994.


So.....my personal interpretation (no, I'm not even close to a lawyer)...

1. Any large capacity weapon, such as an AR, would not be permitted for ownership under the 'new' Class A
2. Any large capacity mags can be owned, if i interpret correctly, if they are 'pre ban', but you can't sell or transfer them....you are stuck with them for good

But, it says nothing that i can see that directs what would happen to large capacity firearms legally obtained before whatever the effective date of this Draconian bill would be if passed.

Anyone care to chime in? Here's the full Linsky Bill of Crap:

http://goal.org/Documents/An Act to... Protect the Citizens of the Commonwealth.pdf
 
In Linsky's bill, can anyone discern what would happen to large capacity weapons? Section 'a' defines Class A as:

a) A Class A license shall entitle a holder thereof to purchase, rent, lease, borrow, possess and
6 carry: (i) firearms, including ammunition therefor, for all lawful purposes, subject to such
7 restrictions relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms as the licensing authority deems
8 proper; and (ii) non-large capacity rifles and shotguns, including ammunition therefor, for all
9 lawful purposes; provided, however, that the licensing authority may impose such restrictions
10 relative to the possession, use or carrying of firearms, rifles and shotguns as it deems proper. A
11 violation of a restriction imposed by the licensing authority under the provisions of this
12 paragraph shall be cause for suspension or revocation and shall, unless otherwise provided, be
13 punished by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000; provided, however, that the
14 provisions of section 10 of chapter 269 shall not apply to such violation

Later in the bill....

297 (s) No license issued under this section shall permit the licensee to purchase, rent, lease, borrow,
298 posses or carry any assault weapon, large-capacity weapon, or large capacity feeding device, as
299 defined in Section 121 of Chapter 140, except while on the premises of a club or facility with an
300 on-site shooting range or gallery with a Class A license issued by the Colonel of the State Police
301 pursuant to paragraph (a

And again later...

888 No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity
889 feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994.


So.....my personal interpretation (no, I'm not even close to a lawyer)...

1. Any large capacity weapon, such as an AR, would not be permitted for ownership under the 'new' Class A
2. Any large capacity mags can be owned, if i interpret correctly, if they are 'pre ban', but you can't sell or transfer them....you are stuck with them for good

But, it says nothing that i can see that directs what would happen to large capacity firearms legally obtained before whatever the effective date of this Draconian bill would be if passed.

Anyone care to chime in? Here's the full Linsky Bill of Crap:

http://goal.org/Documents/An Act to... Protect the Citizens of the Commonwealth.pdf

You have to keep all large capacity weapons and large capacity feeding devices in a storage depot at a gun club. As there are no such clubs in MA with the type of facilities, it's a defacto ban on almost everything.
 
You have to keep all large capacity weapons and large capacity feeding devices in a storage depot at a gun club. As there are no such clubs in MA with the type of facilities, it's a defacto ban on almost everything.

Well, I wonder then who is responsible for a crime committed with a large capacity weapon stolen from the 'storage depot'....the owner or the club? What club in their right mind would assume such a responsibility?

Furthermore, how can I be in in accordance with the law of 'stored and kept' if I am no longer in physical possession of the firearm and it's sitting at some other location? Bulls**t.

You're right, it's a flat out ban more or less if that's the case.
 
Last edited:
I'm not an attorney, but my fiance is so I will show her these bills. My cursory reading of the Linsky excerpt is that all of this nonsese would be prospective. That is, Class A LTC's would be changed to not allow possession of high cap mags, AR's, whatever else. My concern, however, is that none of us with current LTC's are safe. When we are up for renewal, I would bet we all get these new and improved bullshit LTC's.

There is one saving grace that I can see, and I am the world's biggest cynic/pessimist. Most of the Mass laws already on the books are so confusing and abstruse that you COULD NOT FOLLOW THEM IF YOU TRIED. I have heard total horror stories of people being hassled, arrested, etc for following the law to a T but the arresting officer was ignorant. And you have zero recourse. Most attorneys won't sue city hall. So the bottom line is that while I can't speak for all of us, I highly doubt the majority of lawful gun owners will comply with any de facto bans/retroactive BS. If you follow the lines of logic: insane liberals pass ridiculous legislation ---> legislation enforced. But by who? cops? They don't know the laws on the books already and most would not enforce these anyway.

In all honesty I think we will drive ourselves insane worrying about these idiotic politicians. We need to say active, do everything in our power. Lobby, spread the message of responsible, lawful gun ownership and defense of constitutional liberties. But at the end of the day, who here is surrendering anything?
 
Last edited:
You've got to be shitting me!...


SECTION 1. Section 131L of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out subsection (a) and inserting in place thereof the following subsection:-

(a) (1) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.

(2) It shall be unlawful to store more than 5 firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, or any combination of such weapons unless such weapons are secured in a locked safe or vault. It shall be unlawful to store more than 10 firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, or any combination

Bill H.3257
 
I'm not an attorney, but my fiance is so I will show her these bills. My cursory reading of the Linsky excerpt is that all of this nonsese would be prospective. That is, Class A LTC's would be changed to not allow possession of high cap mags, AR's, whatever else. My concern, however, is that none of us with current LTC's are safe. When we are up for renewal, I would bet we all get these new and improved bullshit LTC's.

There is one saving grace that I can see, and I am the world's biggest cynic/pessimist. Most of the Mass laws already on the books are so confusing and abstruse that you COULD NOT FOLLOW THEM IF YOU TRIED. I have heard total horror stories of people being hassled, arrested, etc for following the law to a T but the arresting officer was ignorant. And you have zero recourse. Most attorneys won't sue city hall. So the bottom line is that while I can't speak for all of us, I highly doubt the majority of lawful gun owners will comply with any de facto bans/retroactive BS. If you follow the lines of logic: insane liberals pass ridiculous legislation ---> legislation enforced. But by who? cops? They don't know the laws on the books already and most would not enforce these anyway.

In all honesty I think we will drive ourselves insane worrying about these idiotic politicians. We need to say active, do everything in our power. Lobby, spread the message of responsible, lawful gun ownership and defense of constitutional liberties. But at the end of the day, who here is surrendering anything?

The problem is that the laws are so insane that the whole process becomes arbitrary.

tyranny (ˈtɪrənɪ)

— n , pl -nies
1. a. government by a tyrant or tyrants; despotism
b. similarly oppressive and unjust government by more than one person
2. arbitrary, unreasonable, or despotic behaviour or use of authority: the teacher's tyranny
3. any harsh discipline or oppression: the tyranny of the clock
4. a political unit ruled by a tyrant
5. (esp in ancient Greece) government by a usurper
6. a tyrannical act
 
So they want me to trust the police to review peoples Health records? Why go to a doctor if yo can just go to the police. This entire bill is a cluster F**k. It had every thing we've been fighting against in it. A more aggressive high cap ban, storage laws, insurance requirements, etc.
 
someone said over 50 gun control bills were filed and not all have made it to the GOAL website yet.

This is going to be an epic clusterf&ck
 
H.2188 would essentially ban concealed carry even for those with an unrestricted LTC-A. And, in fact, would mean that if you would have to get permission for your neighbors, in some cases, to possess a firearm in your home.

Section 58. A person shall not discharge any firearm or release any arrow upon or across any state or hard surfaced highway, or within one hundred and fifty feet, of any such highway, or possess a loaded firearm or hunt by any means on the land of another within one thousand feet of any dwelling in use, except as authorized by the owner or occupant thereof. For the purposes of this section, the state or local police, environmental police officers and deputy environmental police officers, in areas over which they have jurisdiction, shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this section.
 
So what do yo do if you have 11 firearms? You need two safes? Where am I supposed all these safes ha ha ha

I think they mean you cannot store more than 10 firearms, period. If that is the case a lot of us would be instant criminals...
 
Is this a funded or unfunded mandate? How are they going to enforce it? Haven't they heard there is no money? We've got to use the money angle to full advantage.

I thought there was a time maybe back in December when the politicians had to have all their bills in by in order for them to be considered. Also, what is this talk of Deval Patrick having a gun bill? I thought the governor doesn't submit legislation, but just sign it. Can anybody answer these?

Thanks.
 
Is this a funded or unfunded mandate? How are they going to enforce it? Haven't they heard there is no money? We've got to use the money angle to full advantage.

I thought there was a time maybe back in December when the politicians had to have all their bills in by in order for them to be considered. Also, what is this talk of Deval Patrick having a gun bill? I thought the governor doesn't submit legislation, but just sign it. Can anybody answer these?

Thanks.

Simple. This is MA. When its time to make budget cuts, crack down on EBT fraud, they have no money and need to raise taxes. When it comes time to ramming absurd legislation up gun owners' arses, there are unlimited funds.

This is MA. All EBT reform bills needed to be in by Dec, but anti-gun bills can be proposed at any old time.

This is MA. Of course the governor can write laws. We don't worry about that silly Constitutional concept of seperation of powers. Especially when it comes to anti-gun bills.
 
But, it says nothing that i can see that directs what would happen to large capacity firearms legally obtained before whatever the effective date of this Draconian bill would be if passed.

Anyone care to chime in? Here's the full Linsky Bill of Crap:

http://goal.org/Documents/An Act to... Protect the Citizens of the Commonwealth.pdf

The idiocy is strong in all of these bills.

Unless Linsky's bill changes the existing definitions of "firearms/rifles etc." that already exists in MA law, things get even more interesting. Under current MA law an AR upper is not considered a rifle. Neither is a lower. It doesn't become a rifle, or require "registration," until the two are assembled and become capable of discharging a shot. So if you possess a post-ban legal rifle, and this bill passes, you separate the two and you no longer own a rifle, just an interesting collection of machined parts.

I know the whole thing is silly, but I bring it up only to point out how asinine and contradictory many of the gun laws are in the PRM. These proposed bills just add more crap to an already messed up collection of laws. A bunch of monkeys sitting at typewriters could draft more reasonable bills.
 
H.2188 would essentially ban concealed carry even for those with an unrestricted LTC-A. And, in fact, would mean that if you would have to get permission for your neighbors, in some cases, to possess a firearm in your home.

Section 58. A person shall not discharge any firearm or release any arrow upon or across any state or hard surfaced highway, or within one hundred and fifty feet, of any such highway, or possess a loaded firearm or hunt by any means on the land of another within one thousand feet of any dwelling in use, except as authorized by the owner or occupant thereof. For the purposes of this section, the state or local police, environmental police officers and deputy environmental police officers, in areas over which they have jurisdiction, shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this section.


The "in some cases" in your example would be something like a condo association, or if you have an easement for your driveway, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom