EJFudd
NES Member
You know that and I know that. But our opinions don't matter. Will the appropriate court see it that way? We can hope so, but I'm just not sure they will.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
-
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.
Massachusetts Legislature Voting on Anti-Civil Rights Bill TODAY!
- Thread starter Amputee Marksman
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,516
- Likes
- 33,530
The game the other side plays is called "taking territory". Anything, no matter how small, that reduces gun rights, increases expenses for gun owners, or causes aggravation is territory. This was primarily a "cleanup" bill removing now obsolete stuff like reference to restrictions, however, tacticians on the other side saw an opportunity and took it. They will claim victory because non-renewals after 3 years will reduce the number of licensed gun owners, which is one of their goals.
There is no reference, either way, to due process in the suitability clauses - other than to clarify it is not "any reason the issuing authority deems reasonable" but rather "potential for dangerousness" .... a distinction the courts are likely to ignore. Pretty much business as usual there.
SFC13557
NES Member
Yes, already passed the House so on to Senate and if passed to Faker's desk.
Thank you. I have since sent emails to my State Rep, Senator, Gov Faker, and FPC.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,516
- Likes
- 33,530
The ONLY approach that has a chance of working is "creates additional burden for police with no public safety benefit".
inkdesigner
NES Member
Probably doesn't matter if he vetos it. Im sure it will pass the Senate with a veto proof majority
EJFudd
NES Member
Yep. I'd like to see The Faker veto it, but it totally doesn't matter with a veto-proof majority of Godless Dim pols supporting it.Probably doesn't matter if he vetoes it. I'm sure it will pass the Senate with a veto proof majority
EMTDAD
NES Member
my email exchange with Scanlon. That twat Rausch never responded.
really?? Most departments can't even meet the 40 day turnaround requirement now... I'm sure you are aware of that requirement, right? and they wish to double their work? Why don't you propose a financial penalty for departments not meeting the 40 day deadline? Or is this truly another money grab penalty for gun owners? We all know that MA anti-gun pols were pissed about the Bruen decision. This legislation is both just a way to penalize gun owners by doubling the fees and filling the state coffers. It does nothing to deter crime. IF anything, it deters low income residents from exercising their constitutional rights due to excessive cost. You know that.
V
On Sunday, July 24, 2022 at 07:57:14 PM EDT, Scanlon, Adam - Rep. (HOU) <[email protected]> wrote:
I spoke to our Police Chief and he was in support of it, I passed along a copy of the text for him to read and spoke to him after.
Thank you,
Adam
really?? Most departments can't even meet the 40 day turnaround requirement now... I'm sure you are aware of that requirement, right? and they wish to double their work? Why don't you propose a financial penalty for departments not meeting the 40 day deadline? Or is this truly another money grab penalty for gun owners? We all know that MA anti-gun pols were pissed about the Bruen decision. This legislation is both just a way to penalize gun owners by doubling the fees and filling the state coffers. It does nothing to deter crime. IF anything, it deters low income residents from exercising their constitutional rights due to excessive cost. You know that.
V
On Sunday, July 24, 2022 at 07:57:14 PM EDT, Scanlon, Adam - Rep. (HOU) <[email protected]> wrote:
I spoke to our Police Chief and he was in support of it, I passed along a copy of the text for him to read and spoke to him after.
Thank you,
Adam
Yep. 5 years or less and you don't have to have a background check done at the time of sale. Someone tell those idiots that little fact and watch how fast that money grab is taken out of the bill. They can't cut the license duration by so much as a year.
Just goes to show how well thought out these bills are.
Per fed. regs. if a CCW (LTC) license is renewed every 5 years or less, a background check is not required to be done by the FFL at the time of sale (If you have a CCW). Just fill out the ATF 4473 form like you always do. Pay for the gun and go home. In many states you don't need a license just to buy/own, only to carry. If you don't have a CCW they still do the background check.
They are trying to get more money by making you renew the license every 3 years instead of every 6. Doubling their revenue. Of course they will say it is because it is safer if they check you out twice as often. But by doing that they will trigger that fed. reg. and effectively eliminate ALL background checks in MA.
Since you can't buy/own without a license in MA, that means that every single gun sold by an FFL in the state would be sold without there being a background check preformed. I laugh thinking about how many heads would explode if someone actually sat the bill's sponsors down and threatened to out them on social media as "trying to stop background checks in MA"
![[rofl2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/035.gif "ROFL2 [rofl2]")
ETA: I just thought about FIDs. Do they still have those in MA? If so then it wouldn't be "all" guns sales, but close enough. It would still be every gun bought for carry purposes...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,516
- Likes
- 33,530
Doubtful. The real reason is someone introduced to take territory in the battle against gun ownership, and the majority just went along with "seems like a good idea".
The interview requirement is to underscore the idea that the police use their skills to determine if someone is suitable via an interrogation lite.
GOAL needs to stop playing Checkers and start playing some goddamn Chess. Use their own tactics against them...
In this case, this bill, which was not debated on at all at the legislative level, is fundamentally Racist, and was written by elite political racists, and is simply a continuance of Massachusetts long history of enacting racist legal policy wherever possible. It is racist because it disproportionately, and deliberately, targets and puts undue financial burden on Low Income areas in Massachusetts. Areas which are also predominantly occupied by minority classes in Massachusetts; effectively denying them, through added financial burden, of their fundamental natural right to Self Defense as enshrined in the 2nd Amendment and confirmed by this latest Supreme Court Decision with Bruen.
Does the single mother of three in Lawrence living in low income housing not have as much of a right to self defense as someone living in Boxford?
In this case, this bill, which was not debated on at all at the legislative level, is fundamentally Racist, and was written by elite political racists, and is simply a continuance of Massachusetts long history of enacting racist legal policy wherever possible. It is racist because it disproportionately, and deliberately, targets and puts undue financial burden on Low Income areas in Massachusetts. Areas which are also predominantly occupied by minority classes in Massachusetts; effectively denying them, through added financial burden, of their fundamental natural right to Self Defense as enshrined in the 2nd Amendment and confirmed by this latest Supreme Court Decision with Bruen.
Does the single mother of three in Lawrence living in low income housing not have as much of a right to self defense as someone living in Boxford?
amm5061
NES Member
Per fed. regs. if a CCW (LTC) license is renewed every 5 years or less, a background check is not required to be done by the FFL at the time of sale (If you have a CCW). Just fill out the ATF 4473 form like you always do. Pay for the gun and go home. In many states you don't need a license just to buy/own, only to carry. If you don't have a CCW they still do the background check.
They are trying to get more money by making you renew the license every 3 years instead of every 6. Doubling their revenue. Of course they will say it is because it is safer if they check you out twice as often. But by doing that they will trigger that fed. reg. and effectively eliminate ALL background checks in MA.
Since you can't buy/own without a license in MA, that means that every single gun sold by an FFL in the state would be sold without there being a background check preformed. I laugh thinking about how many heads would explode if someone actually sat the bill's sponsors down and threatened to out them on social media as "trying to stop background checks in MA"
ETA: I just thought about FIDs. Do they still have those in MA? If so then it wouldn't be "all" guns sales, but close enough. It would still be every gun bought for carry purposes...
It does require an ATF exemption, though, and you can bet the dipshit antis would lobby against it hard. It's not just an automatic thing, the ATF has to actually recognize the permit as exempt under Brady.
Permanent Brady Permit Chart | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Is there some mechanism to notify the courts? How about a memo?You know that and I know that. But our opinions don't matter. Will the appropriate court see it that way? We can hope so, but I'm just not sure they will.
Does it actually DO that? This was discussed in the other thread. Even though restrictions were removed, there is still a placeholder.
Or at least waive the LTC cost. + 1$ per day over.
Really? By Federal law?
amm5061
NES Member
It's called a Brady Alternative, but it doesn't kick in automatically. It requires the ATF to issue that judgement.
EJFudd
NES Member
So can Queen (Soon to be Governor) Maura stop it? Must the state agree to go along with the ATF's "judgement"?
It should hit the senate under this bill: H.5076
And if yoou are bored, the senate is in session and you can watch live. We can see if they bypass most processes and railroad it through.
Session Details - Senate Session
malegislature.gov
You should also write the Governor, notwithstanding whatever the Senate ends up doing on this bill this week. If he happened to VETO the bill (unlikely?) after 7-31 the legislature will not have the opportunity to override his veto because they will be out of session after 7-31. Unfortunately, as we know, the offensive to us parts are an amendment to another bill (Judiciary IT needs) making it more unlikely he would veto that. He is a cuck anyways and does not care about us.
But you never know . . .
But you never know . . .
How much you want to bet he didn’t even ask the C.O.P.?
jettdawg
NES Member
In MA, doesn't the Governor have line item veto ability?
From mass.gov
"Once the Legislature approves its budget, it is sent back to the Governor who has 10 days to review the budget. The Governor may approve the entire budget, veto the entire budget, or veto and reduce specific line items. The Governor may not add any items to the budget at this time."
EJFudd
NES Member
Actually, it wouldn't surprise me at all if many of the state's CoPs are not unhappy at all about the new terms. Yes, there is twice the workload for someone in the department, but I'll bet many feel it's worth it to retain the heavy hand of control they had before Bruen.
Similar threads
