Massachusetts Suppressor Legalization Alert

Beretta92FS

NES Member
Joined
May 12, 2013
Messages
1,617
Likes
3,901
Location
I’d rather be out hunting.
Feedback: 16 / 0 / 0
Just got the following alert from the NRA:

Massachusetts: Contact Committee in Support of Suppressor Legalization Legislation


[FONT=&amp]H.763 sponsored by state Representative Josh S. Cutler (D-Plymouth), and H.789 sponsored by Representative Paul K. Frost (R-Worcester), are similar bills which would legalize firearm suppressor possession in the Bay State. Both H.763 and H.789 would repeal the current prohibition for the use and possession of firearm suppressors and replace the removed section with a provision that would allow the possession of these devices by law-abiding citizens.[/FONT]

On Tuesday, July 18, the Massachusetts Joint Committee on the Judiciary is scheduled to consider both H.763 and H.789.

Please contact members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary and urge them to support H.763 and H.789!

 
Last edited:
Linsky and the "we want to control everything you do" crowd is having a "lobby for more control" day on the same day as the hearing. All the statists will be there. Hope lots of people from our side show up to keep them from dominating the hearing.
 
The Boston Globe ran an editorial today titled "From bad to worse on guns", bashing license reciprocity and suppressors. You know that will energize their anti-gun base for these hearings - if you can attend the hearings that would be awesome, if you can't then make a call to someone on the Judiciary Committee and your Rep and Senator.

There was a great post in another thread recently where someone wrote out how their call went, where they had all the info at their fingertips about what they wanted to say. The committee members are probably going to get a lot of calls tomorrow from both sides, I recommend having your facts together and keep it short and polite (they're probably just going to be checking "for" and "against" boxes I imagine)
 
Last edited:
Emailed all members of the committee using the NRA link in the article. Hers the only repsonse I got.

Thanks for writing about the firearms suppression legislation.
I will listen carefully to the testimony on this issue. As I recall from prior years, there are people on both sides of the issue.
I appreciate knowing that you support it and I will bear your views in mind.
All best,
Will B.
Will Brownsberger State Senator
Back Bay, Fenway, Allston, Brighton, Watertown, Belmont
617-722-1280 (office)
617-771-8274 (cell)
 
I had an email exchange with Sen Brownsberger a couple months ago; he called himself a strong proponent of gun control and strong supporter of Maura Healey (our exchange was in the context of the "act clarifying firearms oversight", but said I had raised good points as well (probably in reference to the suppressor and tazer bills parts of the discussion) Like you, he was the only one to actually write back. - my own senator is in the committee and never replied.

So, not the answer I hoped for but maybe he'll listen on the tazer and suppressor stuff. Half the time I feel like the reps and senators are clowns, at least this guy seems professional and like he makes up his own mind.


Emailed all members of the committee using the NRA link in the article. Hers the only repsonse I got.

Thanks for writing about the firearms suppression legislation.
I will listen carefully to the testimony on this issue. As I recall from prior years, there are people on both sides of the issue.
I appreciate knowing that you support it and I will bear your views in mind.
All best,
Will B.
Will Brownsberger State Senator
Back Bay, Fenway, Allston, Brighton, Watertown, Belmont
617-722-1280 (office)
617-771-8274 (cell)
 
Thing about MA is that some idiots here just assume a "Suppressor" is something you'd use to shut Elizabeth E. (effin) Warren the hell up... (since even some of my liberal friends can't stand listening to the disgusting, off-the-wall, lunatic wench anymore)....

Just sayin'
 
Will has never touched a gun in his life and has no interest in learning about them. Not even willing to attend a basic safety course. Tried to reason with him in 2014 to no avail. But at least he wrote back and wasn't snide. During 7/20 he punted to the courts for action and said he supported Healey.
 
I had an email exchange with Sen Brownsberger a couple months ago; he called himself a strong proponent of gun control and strong supporter of Maura Healey (our exchange was in the context of the "act clarifying firearms oversight", but said I had raised good points as well (probably in reference to the suppressor and tazer bills parts of the discussion) Like you, he was the only one to actually write back. - my own senator is in the committee and never replied.

So, not the answer I hoped for but maybe he'll listen on the tazer and suppressor stuff. Half the time I feel like the reps and senators are clowns, at least this guy seems professional and like he makes up his own mind.

Will is pretty professional.. Keep in Mind.. His daughter's wedding was across the street from HSC. Yeah.. It bothered the guests.
 
i want to email them but not through the NRA link. something tells me they have a way of filtering that out.

can someone post a link with all their emails? TrueQuaid your posting isn't fully showing up, only part of it. would try to remove whatever formatting is present when you cut and paste.
 
sent letter to the committee, thx for posting.

--

Dear Members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary:


My wife and I are ______________ in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We both strongly support H.763 and H.789 sponsored by Representatives Cutler and Frost, respectively, and would like to provide our reasoning for such support.


Firstly, a single shot generates 150 - 180 decibels. In the absence of hearing protection this is sufficient to produce permanent hearing damage, which is a prevalent medical problem among hunters and sport shooters. Bills H.763 and H.789 will remove the statewide prohibition on suppressor ownership, thus allowing citizens of the Commonwealth to protect their hearing via exercising their federal rights to suppressor ownership.


Secondly, 42 states in the US are without a prohibition on suppressors. Residents of these states are able to obtain suppressors through the federal process that includes extensive background checks. There are no data to support a notion that lawful ownership of suppressors poses a risk to the public. If prohibition on suppressors provided any measure of security, the 8 states with prohibitions would be safer places to live. This is far from the case.


Lastly, suppressors would allow hunters and target shooters to enjoy their sports with minimal auditory disruptions to their neighbors. For example, we shoot at Westwood Gun Club several times per month. While our club enjoys excellent relations with those living nearby, utilizing a suppressor would allow club members to minimize disturbances to the neighbors. Personally if we lived near a range we would want everyone to use suppressors!


We hope that the committee supports these bills and that the legislature is able to enact them into law.


Sincerely,


Mr. and Mrs. Squib



 
Email follow up from Brownsburger regarding the suppressor bills

Thanks for writing about the suppressor legislation.
I have received over 1000 emails on the subject and yesterday, I listened carefully to lengthy testimony on this issue from both proponents and opponents.
I am pretty convinced at this stage that I should not support this legislation.
Urban law enforcement personnel are firmly opposed -- making gunshots quieter makes them harder to detect. We heard testimony that shot detectors can detect suppressed shots, but I did not find that testimony credible. The suppressors have to reduce the range and sensitivity of detectors, even if they do not prevent detection of nearby shots.
I know that lawful gun users are mostly not the ones committing crime. But, we have a huge struggle on our hands to contain urban violence and we do not want to bring more suppressors into circulation in our state.
I understand the benefits for shooters in terms of hearing loss. Shooters should wear hearing protection and they have many good options for that.
I sympathize with hunters, who naturally do want to hear everything around them. But, at least in our state, that concern does not outweigh the higher concern about urban violence.
Best regards,
Will Brownsberger
Will Brownsberger State Senator
Back Bay, Fenway, Allston, Brighton, Watertown, Belmont
617-722-1280 (office)
617-771-8274 (cell)
 
Email follow up from Brownsburger regarding the suppressor bills

Thanks for writing about the suppressor legislation.
I have received over 1000 emails on the subject and yesterday, I listened carefully to lengthy testimony on this issue from both proponents and opponents.
I am pretty convinced at this stage that I should not support this legislation.
Urban law enforcement personnel are firmly opposed -- making gunshots quieter makes them harder to detect. We heard testimony that shot detectors can detect suppressed shots, but I did not find that testimony credible. The suppressors have to reduce the range and sensitivity of detectors, even if they do not prevent detection of nearby shots.
I know that lawful gun users are mostly not the ones committing crime. But, we have a huge struggle on our hands to contain urban violence and we do not want to bring more suppressors into circulation in our state.
I understand the benefits for shooters in terms of hearing loss. Shooters should wear hearing protection and they have many good options for that.
I sympathize with hunters, who naturally do want to hear everything around them. But, at least in our state, that concern does not outweigh the higher concern about urban violence.
Best regards,
Will Brownsberger
Will Brownsberger State Senator
Back Bay, Fenway, Allston, Brighton, Watertown, Belmont
617-722-1280 (office)
617-771-8274 (cell)

http://youtu.be/71AwyikOEoI
 
Email follow up from Brownsburger regarding the suppressor bills

Thanks for writing about the suppressor legislation.
I have received over 1000 emails on the subject and yesterday, I listened carefully to lengthy testimony on this issue from both proponents and opponents.
I am pretty convinced at this stage that I should not support this legislation.
Urban law enforcement personnel are firmly opposed -- making gunshots quieter makes them harder to detect. We heard testimony that shot detectors can detect suppressed shots, but I did not find that testimony credible. The suppressors have to reduce the range and sensitivity of detectors, even if they do not prevent detection of nearby shots.
I know that lawful gun users are mostly not the ones committing crime. But, we have a huge struggle on our hands to contain urban violence and we do not want to bring more suppressors into circulation in our state.
I understand the benefits for shooters in terms of hearing loss. Shooters should wear hearing protection and they have many good options for that.
I sympathize with hunters, who naturally do want to hear everything around them. But, at least in our state, that concern does not outweigh the higher concern about urban violence.
Best regards,
Will Brownsberger
Will Brownsberger State Senator
Back Bay, Fenway, Allston, Brighton, Watertown, Belmont
617-722-1280 (office)
617-771-8274 (cell)

I got the same response...this state suuucks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Email follow up from Brownsburger regarding the suppressor bills

Thanks for writing about the suppressor legislation.
I have received over 1000 emails on the subject and yesterday, I listened carefully to lengthy testimony on this issue from both proponents and opponents.
I am pretty convinced at this stage that I should not support this legislation.
Urban law enforcement personnel are firmly opposed -- making gunshots quieter makes them harder to detect. We heard testimony that shot detectors can detect suppressed shots, but I did not find that testimony credible. The suppressors have to reduce the range and sensitivity of detectors, even if they do not prevent detection of nearby shots.
I know that lawful gun users are mostly not the ones committing crime. But, we have a huge struggle on our hands to contain urban violence and we do not want to bring more suppressors into circulation in our state.
I understand the benefits for shooters in terms of hearing loss. Shooters should wear hearing protection and they have many good options for that.
I sympathize with hunters, who naturally do want to hear everything around them. But, at least in our state, that concern does not outweigh the higher concern about urban violence.
Best regards,
Will Brownsberger
Will Brownsberger State Senator
Back Bay, Fenway, Allston, Brighton, Watertown, Belmont
617-722-1280 (office)
617-771-8274 (cell)

I too am worried about the sea of handguns with threaded barrels that are permeating our urban areas. In addition the many upstanding gangbangers who would be buying $700 suppressors and submitting an application and another $200 to the Feds for a tax stamp would be absolutely out of control. What a friggin tool
 
Email follow up from Brownsburger regarding the suppressor bills

Thanks for writing about the suppressor legislation.
I have received over 1000 emails on the subject and yesterday, I listened carefully to lengthy testimony on this issue from both proponents and opponents.
I am pretty convinced at this stage that I should not support this legislation.
Urban law enforcement personnel are firmly opposed -- making gunshots quieter makes them harder to detect. We heard testimony that shot detectors can detect suppressed shots, but I did not find that testimony credible. The suppressors have to reduce the range and sensitivity of detectors, even if they do not prevent detection of nearby shots.
I know that lawful gun users are mostly not the ones committing crime. But, we have a huge struggle on our hands to contain urban violence and we do not want to bring more suppressors into circulation in our state.
I understand the benefits for shooters in terms of hearing loss. Shooters should wear hearing protection and they have many good options for that.
I sympathize with hunters, who naturally do want to hear everything around them. But, at least in our state, that concern does not outweigh the higher concern about urban violence.
Best regards,
Will Brownsberger
Will Brownsberger State Senator
Back Bay, Fenway, Allston, Brighton, Watertown, Belmont
617-722-1280 (office)
617-771-8274 (cell)

I got the same email. What a clueless person. As if state level legalization of suppressors would magically make the NFA laws governing them disappear. These "Urban law enforcement personnel" are just as stupid and out of touch with reality. I hate this state.
 
Email follow up from Brownsburger regarding the suppressor bills

Thanks for writing about the suppressor legislation.
I have received over 1000 emails on the subject and yesterday, I listened carefully to lengthy testimony on this issue from both proponents and opponents.
I am pretty convinced at this stage that I should not support this legislation.
Urban law enforcement personnel are firmly opposed -- making gunshots quieter makes them harder to detect. We heard testimony that shot detectors can detect suppressed shots, but I did not find that testimony credible. The suppressors have to reduce the range and sensitivity of detectors, even if they do not prevent detection of nearby shots.
I know that lawful gun users are mostly not the ones committing crime. But, we have a huge struggle on our hands to contain urban violence and we do not want to bring more suppressors into circulation in our state.
I understand the benefits for shooters in terms of hearing loss. Shooters should wear hearing protection and they have many good options for that.
I sympathize with hunters, who naturally do want to hear everything around them. But, at least in our state, that concern does not outweigh the higher concern about urban violence.
Best regards,
Will Brownsberger
Will Brownsberger State Senator
Back Bay, Fenway, Allston, Brighton, Watertown, Belmont
617-722-1280 (office)
617-771-8274 (cell)

http://youtu.be/71AwyikOEoI
 
wait, this will pass when the fools on bacon hill figure out the they can generate revenue by licencing each and every supressor.
 
I got the same response as well.

"we do not want to bring more suppressors into circulation in to the state" ? huh? More? what , more than the criminals already have?

As if criminals are going to follow the law senator [rolleyes] He obviously only cares about keeping his job in this moonbat state

screw them, I already have tinnitus so WTF[banghead]
 
I want to know how many urban bangers can drop a grand for a can, $200 on a stamp and another $150 on a threaded barrel for their Hi point. Virtually every photo msp posts of an illegal gun find has 2,3, 4 rounds in the mag. The only fully loaded semi autos grabbed are from some poor bastard that wandered into this grand utopia.
 
Naturally, Law Enforcement weighs heavily in the decision-making process.

If they're not on-board, ain't NOBODY onboard. This also tells me that Boston is using some kind of shot-trajectory tech to determine the exact location of gunfire downtown, and those folks haven't tested/vetted their tech against suppressor-equipped firearms. All is not lost - there is a problem that needs to be resolved first. A 'study' needs to happen, so that LEO concerns are mitigated and then the bill will get support.
 
I want to know how many urban bangers can drop a grand for a can, $200 on a stamp and another $150 on a threaded barrel for their Hi point. Virtually every photo msp posts of an illegal gun find has 2,3, 4 rounds in the mag. The only fully loaded semi autos grabbed are from some poor bastard that wandered into this grand utopia.

It isn't about the money.....it's about LEOs having concerns that everyone here didn't take into consideration and properly mitigate.

This is a symptom of MANY issues related to gun-ownership across the state - a thorough LACK of engagement and communication with LEOs regarding gun legislation - this bill was a 'shot from the hip', and the LEO community said "NOPE", so it will die.​
 
Naturally, Law Enforcement weighs heavily in the decision-making process.

If they're not on-board, ain't NOBODY onboard. This also tells me that Boston is using some kind of shot-trajectory tech to determine the exact location of gunfire downtown, and those folks haven't tested/vetted their tech against suppressor-equipped firearms. All is not lost - there is a problem that needs to be resolved first. A 'study' needs to happen, so that LEO concerns are mitigated and then the bill will get support.

is my sarcasm sensor broken?
 
Back
Top Bottom