Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker to sign 'red flag' gun bill on Tuesday

[HorizontalHunter]

I will be very surprised if I have any option other than blanking the next ballot with Tall Deval Faker's name on it.

I will write in Mickey Mouse before I check Bakers box.

Bob

 

[Asaltweapon]

Well this morning the news people were all giggly over this POS. Both the bill and Chucky

 

[allen-1]

"Massachusetts has always relied on police chiefs to serve as the primary point of decision-making on issues around license to carry," Baker said. "The fact that the police chiefs came out and support this legislation meant a lot to us."

Baker is planning a bill signing ceremony at 12:30 p.m. in his office.

Under the bill, if a family or household member believes someone poses a risk to themselves or someone else, they will be able to petition a District Court judge to immediately suspend that person's gun license and confiscate their weapons.

Within 10 days, the judge would hold a hearing, and the person would have a chance to argue whether the protective order should be extended for up to a year.

So much fail in these paragraphs.

He just basically said "the cops decide who carries". Silly me - I thought it was a constitutionally protected right. Oh, that's right - MASSACHUSETTS.

Next is that your license can be suspended and your firearms confiscated because a family member thinks you're a danger. Then THEY have 10 days for the judge to hold a hearing to determine if the order should be extended for up to a year. I didn't hear anything about MY rights as a citizen or gun owner against having my property seized, or my permit taken away because my batshit ex-wife just filed a complaint... So much room for abuse here.

 

[firestorm]

"Massachusetts has always relied on police chiefs to serve as the primary point of decision-making on issues around license to carry," Baker said. "The fact that the police chiefs came out and support this legislation meant a lot to us."

Baker is planning a bill signing ceremony at 12:30 p.m. in his office.

Under the bill, if a family or household member believes someone poses a risk to themselves or someone else, they will be able to petition a District Court judge to immediately suspend that person's gun license and confiscate their weapons.

Within 10 days, the judge would hold a hearing, and the person would have a chance to argue whether the protective order should be extended for up to a year.

So much fail in these paragraphs.

He just basically said "the cops decide who carries". Silly me - I thought it was a constitutionally protected right. Oh, that's right - MASSACHUSETTS.

Next is that your license can be suspended and your firearms confiscated because a family member thinks you're a danger. Then THEY have 10 days for the judge to hold a hearing to determine if the order should be extended for up to a year. I didn't hear anything about MY rights as a citizen or gun owner against having my property seized, or my permit taken away because my batshit ex-wife just filed a complaint... So much room for abuse here.

Also it sounded like they get to go to this hearing to plead with a judge to extend it, I'm not sure you get to go defend yourself at all. Of course since it isn't a criminal trial you don't get a lawyer unless you can afford one, assuming you even get to be a part of the kangaroo court proceedings. No judge is going to say no to any of these, just like 209A's, so if someone files one it is a loss of all your guns, and a year where you can't get more in this state.

 

[amm5061]

Also it sounded like they get to go to this hearing to plead with a judge to extend it, I'm not sure you get to go defend yourself at all. Of course since it isn't a criminal trial you don't get a lawyer unless you can afford one, assuming you even get to be a part of the kangaroo court proceedings. No judge is going to say no to any of these, just like 209A's, so if someone files one it is a loss of all your guns, and a year where you can't get more in this state.

The only upside is that this doesn't have the force of Lautenburg behind it. You can be indefinitely prohibited in MA, but just a few hours across the border NH and the Feds give 0 f***s about it. Pulling the Mental Health bait-and-switch was far less damaging to us than if they had framed it as a domestic violence bill.

 

[Palladin]

was the Taser legislation buried in this POS ? found it

Bill H.4670

 

[Uzi2]

The only upside is that this doesn't have the force of Lautenburg behind it. You can be indefinitely prohibited in MA, but just a few hours across the border NH and the Feds give 0 f***s about it. Pulling the Mental Health bait-and-switch was far less damaging to us than if they had framed it as a domestic violence bill.

The point is, there is a conspiracy being played out here if anyone ventures into obtaining such a petition to deny people of their constitutionally protected right. One party being the petitioner, the other party being a district court judge. All being done without any crime being committed.
Who is going to pay for any expert testimony? If a person is accused of being mentally unfit to possess a gun even though they have it legally before such a petition was brought against them, they damned sure have the right to have a competent person testify on their behalf.......who is going to pay for that?
This bill should have been written with a mandatory 20 year sentence to be imposed on the petitioner and the judge if the person petitioned against prevailed in such a ridiculous unconstitutional hearing. Seeing that no judge would ever set themself up for such a liability, the deck is completely stacked against the respondent.
This is not rule of law, this is abject tyranny being played out here with no due process and no crime committed.

The constitution specifically forbids this type of action.......for just this type of BS.

 

[amm5061]

The point is, there is a conspiracy being played out here if anyone ventures into obtaining such a petition to deny people of their constitutionally protected right. One party being the petitioner, the other party being a district court judge. All being done without any crime being committed.
Who is going to pay for any expert testimony? If a person is accused of being mentally unfit to possess a gun even though they have it legally before such a petition was brought against them, they damned sure have the right to have a competent person testify on their behalf.......who is going to pay for that?
This bill should have been written with a mandatory 20 year sentence to be imposed on the petitioner and the judge if the person petitioned against prevailed in such a ridiculous unconstitutional hearing. Seeing that no judge would ever set themself up for such a liability, the deck is completely stacked against the respondent.
This is not rule of law, this is abject tyranny being played out here with no due process and no crime committed.

The constitution specifically forbids this type of action.......for just this type of BS.

No argument from me. I happen to agree with you.

 

[Uzi2]

No argument from me. I happen to agree with you.

My point in replying was, there is no "upside" to the bill/law. It is unconstitutional failure from the moment the notion was conceived.

 

[nastynatural]

He needs that mole ripped off his upper lip.

 

[allen-1]

was the Taser legislation buried in this POS ? found it

Bill H.4670

Oh those miserable bastards:

Whereas, The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is to regulate forthwith the possession of firearms in the commonwealth, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience.

 

[Varmint]

The more they abuse it the faster it’ll be up before the Supreme Court. Trump’s greatest gift will be a revised Supreme Court. Keep slipping the mercury drops into RBG’s coffee.

 

[Bfatz]

Look around there are Mental Leftists everywhere, so this bill is basically a back door confiscation.

Of course the mentally deranged can't use a knife or a 5000 pound vehicle to hurt others, nope just a gun...Liberal Logic on display folks.

The Beacon Hill rats need to go!

 

[Palladin]

Opposing the bill, Rep. Paul Frost (R-Auburn) said the legislation does “little to nothing but providing literature” to someone deemed an extreme risk. “We let them just go home and we feel better somehow that if they do have guns that, we’re going to confiscate them all but do nothing about that person’s instability and if that person wants to truly hurt other people or truly even hurt themselves that they can find other means to do it,” he said.

Charlie Baker is set to sign Gun Confiscation Bill to please his gun grabbing donors

 

[amm5061]

Oh those miserable bastards:

Whereas, The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is to regulate forthwith the possession of firearms in the commonwealth, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience.

Honestly, this is torch and pitchfork kind of shit. We need to bring back tar and feathering.

 

[Freddy B]

Charlie the cuck

Hmm, that has a nice ring to it . . .:emoji_thinking:

 

[BarnB]

 

[HorizontalHunter]

This bill is punishes and confiscates property because someone thinks that you might commit a crime.

Bob

 

[enbloc]

...Cork Soaker!

 

[Dieseldoc3684]

enough is enough, it's time to find a way to get together and get these people out of office.

 

[Enzo]

Tall Deval likes to cry or at least tear up at these type of events. I’m sure this one won’t be any different......

 

[firestorm]

The point is, there is a conspiracy being played out here if anyone ventures into obtaining such a petition to deny people of their constitutionally protected right. One party being the petitioner, the other party being a district court judge. All being done without any crime being committed.
Who is going to pay for any expert testimony? If a person is accused of being mentally unfit to possess a gun even though they have it legally before such a petition was brought against them, they damned sure have the right to have a competent person testify on their behalf.......who is going to pay for that?
This bill should have been written with a mandatory 20 year sentence to be imposed on the petitioner and the judge if the person petitioned against prevailed in such a ridiculous unconstitutional hearing. Seeing that no judge would ever set themself up for such a liability, the deck is completely stacked against the respondent.
This is not rule of law, this is abject tyranny being played out here with no due process and no crime committed.

The constitution specifically forbids this type of action.......for just this type of BS.

In a stroke of genius, they shot down an amendment to up the penalty for filing a false ERPO, and another that would have stopped someone who was already a known harasser of someone from filing one against that person. So they kept the penalty low, even though your rights are taken by this false report, and made it so someone who already is harrassing someone else just has one more tool to ruin the person's life.

 

[10thSFFD]

Gun Reform Advocates Score Victory in Mass.

While gun reform is certainly not complete in the Bay State, Gov. Charlie Baker plans to sign the “red flag” protection bill into law on Tuesday, State House News Service reports. The legislation, which allows judges to temporarily seize weapons from dangerous individuals, marks a victory for gun control advocates in Massachusetts amid a national push for reform.

“We are ensuring that there will be strong avenues for people to keep themselves safe and to keep others safe,” Rep. Marjorie Decker, a Cambridge Democrat who sponsored the bill, told SHNS.

Under the new legislation, family or household members will be able request that the courts temporarily suspend someone’s gun license and take their weapons. The courts will only be empowered to act if the person in possession of a firearm is determined to pose a legitimate risk to themselves or others.

 

[Sparky123]

Gov. Charlie Baker will sign a bill on Tuesday that will give Massachusetts even stronger gun control laws.

Massachusetts already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. The so-called "red flag" bill, or extreme risk protection order bill, will allow a family or household member to petition a judge to confiscate someone's gun if the person poses a danger to themselves or others.

Baker, a Republican, on Monday said he was swayed by the support of the state's police chiefs.

"Massachusetts has always relied on police chiefs to serve as the primary point of decision-making on issues around license to carry," Baker said. "The fact that the police chiefs came out and support this legislation meant a lot to us."

Baker is planning a bill signing ceremony at 12:30 p.m. in his office.

Under the bill, if a family or household member believes someone poses a risk to themselves or someone else, they will be able to petition a District Court judge to immediately suspend that person's gun license and confiscate their weapons.

Within 10 days, the judge would hold a hearing, and the person would have a chance to argue whether the protective order should be extended for up to a year.

The ruling could be appealed. It could be modified based on a request by either party.


Massachusetts police chiefs already have discretion to deny someone a gun license. But the police chiefs said this bill would provide an extra tool for family members who know someone best to remove someone's guns without involving the police.


Legislature sends 'red flag' gun bill to Gov. Charlie Baker

The bill would allow a family or household member to petition a judge to confiscate someone's gun if the person poses a danger to themselves or others.



The bill, sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Decker, D-Cambridge, gained momentum in the Legislature as part of a national push for stronger gun control laws after a school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Alumni of the Parkland school lobbied in its favor.

At least five states already have similar laws in place.

Supporters of the bill say it will save lives by potentially preventing someone from committing suicide or homicide.

Massachusetts' gun rights lobby opposed the bill. Representatives of the Gun Owners Action League had argued that the extreme risk protection order would do nothing to help someone who has a mental illness, but would merely confiscate a person's weapons and send the person home.

The bill will go into effect 45 days after it is signed into law.

This is just another slap in the face for legal gun owners, this new law will have absolutely no effect on criminals. All you have to do now is piss off one of your relatives or a former girlfriend and bye, bye guns. Thank you governor Baker, we can always depend on you to do the right thing. I'm sure any of your democratic buddies can testify to that.

 

[10thSFFD]

This is just another slap in the face for legal gun owners, this new law will have absolutely no effect on criminals. All you have to do now is piss off one of your relatives or a former girlfriend and bye, bye guns. Thank you governor Baker, we can always depend on you to do the right thing. I'm sure any of your democratic buddies can testify to that.

How come this is not classified as a private matter? WTF?

 

[ThePreBanMan]

I will write in Mickey Mouse before I check Bakers box.

Bob

Same.

 

[10thSFFD]

Same.

Republicans in MASS? Not so much!

 

[Horrible]

Look around there are Mental Leftists everywhere, so this bill is basically a back door confiscation.

Of course the mentally deranged can't use a knife or a 5000 pound vehicle to hurt others, nope just a gun...Liberal Logic on display folks.

The Beacon Hill rats need to go!

Correct. This is nothing more than backdoor gun confiscation and EXACTLY that. This is exactly why we have a 2A, 4A, and 5A.

 

[10thSFFD]

This is nothing more than backdoor gun confiscation and EXACTLY that. This is exactly why we have a 2A, 4A, and 5A.

Yah.......In MA those do not ring a bell in the population or in the MASS politics. I guess, we would just end up vetting family and friends, and that is exactly what these liberals want. Everyone can rat on you and everyone is never safe unless you join them and only then you are somehow safe.

 

[MachineHead]

Where’s the list of the RINO a**h***s who voted for this in the House and Senate?