New bad laws coming!

Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
44
Likes
14
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
The following is a list of the legislation which will be considered:

S913


An Act relative to an unloaded rifle or shotgun.


S921


An Act relative to the safety of law enforcement officers.



S926


An Act relative to certain ammunition.



S927


An Act relative to the lawful sale of ammunition.



S933


An Act Regarding the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking and Gun Violence Among Youth in the Commonwealth.



S935


An Act to require tagging of explosive materials.



S938


An Act relative to preventing illegal trafficking of firearms.



S964


An Act Prohibiting the Confiscation of Lawfully Owned Firearms During a State of Emergency



S977


An Act to further enhance public safety in the Commonwealth.



S978


An Act creating a global positioning system locators in firearms study commission.



S986


An Act establishing the Massachusetts armor piercing law.



S995


An Act relative to issuing a license to carry firearms to law enforcement officers on college campuses.



H34


An Act an act relative to the regulation of gun shows



H2202


An Act to close automatic weapon loopholes.



H2231


An Act to allow hunting on Sunday within the Commonwealth.



H2232


An Act relative to the use of shotguns.



H2247


An Act to improve the ballistic database through microstamping ammunition.



H2249


An Act to close a loophole in the assault weapons ban and further reduce gun violence in the Commonwealth.



H2259


An Act relative to civil rights and public safety.



H2263


An Act relative to surrender and storage.



H2267


An Act relative to shooting near highway or dwelling.



H2287


An Act relative to firearms in the commonwealth.



H2294


An Act relative to the possession of weapons.






Some of these are pro gun. I think we need to make a 'good' and 'bad' list so everyone does not need to do their own research.

These seem to be pro gunish:

S927 seems to allow mail order ammo sales.
S926 allows .17 caliber.
S921 may be ok.
S964
H2231
H2232

Can someone please make a 'good' and 'bad' list?
 
Beware of regulations trying to sneak under the radar while we're all watching the bills.

How can we gain insight to any pending regs and is there anything we can do to prevent them?

Isn't the fundamental problem with regulations, that we're powerless to prevent them?
 
Isn't the fundamental problem with regulations, that we're powerless to prevent them?

You are obviously unaware of what happened last June, notwithstanding the fact that you had been on this board for almost a year and a half and the event was heavily discussed - before and after.
 
You are obviously unaware of what happened last June, notwithstanding the fact that you had been on this board for almost a year and a half and the event was heavily discussed - before and after.

Why do you have to be such a dick and why cant you simply answer his question? [thinking]
 
You are obviously unaware of what happened last June, notwithstanding the fact that you had been on this board for almost a year and a half and the event was heavily discussed - before and after.

WTF are you talking about?

Must you really have only two modes...disdain, and sarcasm?

If your incessant irritability is from a concern over giving free legal advice, why bother posting on a public forum?
 
Last edited:
WTF are you talking about?

Must you really have only two modes...disdain, and sarcasm?

If your incessant irritability is from a concern over giving free legal advice, why bother posting on a public forum?

Take it easy on the Scrive. You gotta look at him as a form of entertainment. He can really make you laugh when he's barking. [grin]
 
Take it easy on the Scrive. You gotta look at him as a form of entertainment. He can really make you laugh when he's barking. [grin]

I fail to see the 'entertainment' value.

He posts that we should all be careful of REGULATIONS (in bold, even), with no context or further explanation, then when he gets a legitimate follow-up question, he gets his panties in a knot.

The act is growing very thin!


I can't believe he's actually in a business in which he deals with the public and (presumably) soliciting folks to hire him.
 
Last edited:
I didn't re-read the entire 36 page thread, but I re-read a lot of it and my reading along with my recollection doesn't point out why there was anything wrong with my question in this thread.

That thread consists of 36 pages of 'this sucks', 'how can they do this', etc. etc.

What Scriv was trying to say, in an obtuse manner, is that thread refers to a proposal to end all firearms training not through a bill for a new Mass MGL but rather through Mass CMRs. Mass CMRs are not voted on by the legislation they are created and enacted by "executive branch agencies" whoever the hell they are.

So hence his quote "beware of regulations" that us plebians were not able to interpret properly......
 
Last edited:
What Scriv was trying to say, in an obtuse manner, is that thread refers to a proposal to end all firearms training not through a bill for a new Mass MGL but rather through Mass CMRs. Mass CMRs are not voted on by the legislation they are created and enacted by "executive branch agencies" whoever the hell they are.

So hence his quote "beware of regulations" that us plebians were not able to interpret properly......


And the point of my post that Scrivener crapped all over was to simply question whether it wasn't indeed a fact that the biggest problem with regulations is that there isn't really a dang thing you can do about them.

THEREFORE...what's the use of 'being aware of them...sneaking up' other than to know you're bound by them?

I still don't get what his problem was, other than his personality.
 
Last edited:
And the point of my post that Scrivener crapped all over was to simply question whether it wasn't indeed a fact that the biggest problem with regulations is that there isn't really a dang thing you can do about them.

THEREFORE...what's the use of 'being aware of them...sneaking up' other than to know you're bound by them?

As those who followed the events as they occurred - or at least read and comprehended the thread - realized, the huge turnout and unanimous opposition to the proposed regs stopped their implementation.

That is not to say that the author(s) of that virulently anti-gun opus won't try again; they will. The fact remains that those in the firearms community sufficiently conscious to realize the threat and sufficiently motivated to oppose them did so - successfully. Too bad you still can't grasp that concept.

I still don't get what his problem was, other than his personality.

We'll add that to the list of Things You Don't Get.
 
As those who followed the events as they occurred - or at least read and comprehended the thread - realized, the huge turnout and unanimous opposition to the proposed regs stopped their implementation.

That is not to say that the author(s) of that virulently anti-gun opus won't try again; they will. The fact remains that those in the firearms community sufficiently conscious to realize the threat and sufficiently motivated to oppose them did so - successfully. Too bad you still can't grasp that concept.



We'll add that to the list of Things You Don't Get.


Are you at least seeking therapy?
 
Last edited:
So, the question becomes, "Is there anything we can do about this?"

What needs to happen is that there, yup, "needs to be a law", restricting the power of the AG. I think the legislature was pretty miffed when the AG started with all this, but were afraid to do anything. Maybe with her senatorial defeat, they will be more bold.
 
As those who followed the events as they occurred - or at least read and comprehended the thread - realized, the huge turnout and unanimous opposition to the proposed regs stopped their implementation.

That is not to say that the author(s) of that virulently anti-gun opus won't try again; they will. The fact remains that those in the firearms community sufficiently conscious to realize the threat and sufficiently motivated to oppose them did so - successfully. Too bad you still can't grasp that concept.


True they did indeed back off. HOWEVER, my read of public hearings and the writing of Regs leads me to believe that there is NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT that they even consider the testimony given at a public hearing/written testimony submitted . . . and thus, IF THEY CHOOSE, they can move ahead with their wrong-headed Regs.

I'm sure that you will tell me (vociferously) if my analysis is wrong.


Does anybody know if any of these proposed bills got out of committee yesterday?

It is standard practice NOT to vote on the bills the same day as the hearings are held. Seems to me that the committees go back to the "smoke filled rooms" to determine what will move ahead and what won't at some time in the future . . . with no real time limits (if not done before the end of a legislative term, it's dead and must be refiled at some future legislative term).
 
I think the legislature was pretty miffed when the AG started with all this, but were afraid to do anything. Maybe with her senatorial defeat, they will be more bold.

Hardly.

1. IF "the legislature was pretty miffed," it has done NOTHING to act on that alleged anger - unless you call C. 180 an AG beat-down, which I don't.

2. You don't even have the right AG. Coakley came in AFTER the regs in question.
 
It is standard practice NOT to vote on the bills the same day as the hearings are held. Seems to me that the committees go back to the "smoke filled rooms" to determine what will move ahead and what won't at some time in the future . . . with no real time limits (if not done before the end of a legislative term, it's dead and must be refiled at some future legislative term).

Thanks, Didn't know that.
 
True they did indeed back off. HOWEVER, my read of public hearings and the writing of Regs leads me to believe that there is NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT that they even consider the testimony given at a public hearing/written testimony submitted . . . and thus, IF THEY CHOOSE, they can move ahead with their wrong-headed Regs.

I'm sure that you will tell me (vociferously) if my analysis is wrong.
.


Remember too that we got the attention of several lawmakers who voiced their opposition to the proposed regs. I think that helped a lot.
 
As those who followed the events as they occurred - or at least read and comprehended the thread - realized, the huge turnout and unanimous opposition to the proposed regs stopped their implementation.

That is not to say that the author(s) of that virulently anti-gun opus won't try again; they will. The fact remains that those in the firearms community sufficiently conscious to realize the threat and sufficiently motivated to oppose them did so - successfully. Too bad you still can't grasp that concept.



We'll add that to the list of Things You Don't Get.

Scriv, you're being a giant festering douchebag.

People have day jobs and expecting them to keep up with every little event in MA gun law like you do is disingenuous when that is your day job.
 
Scriv, you're being a giant festering douchebag.

People have day jobs and expecting them to keep up with every little event in MA gun law like you do is disingenuous when that is your day job.

Say, "Sorry." Go ahead. Say it. Poor Scriv. He's misunderstood.
[rofl]
 
Scriv, you're being a giant festering douchebag.

People have day jobs and expecting them to keep up with every little event in MA gun law like you do is disingenuous when that is your day job.

I suggest you remember the following:

1. THIS forum had a significant and protracted thread on the subject before AND after the hearings;

2. The GOAL site had equally extensive coverage of them; and

3. The Outdoor Message had the same coverage.

Which is to say, anyone on this forum could - and likely DID - see that coverage and certainly had the opportunity to.

If those complaining about my remarks are such Second Amendment activists, how is it they were - and remain - oblivious to it all?
 
Back
Top Bottom