Redo MA gun laws!

Coyote33

Coyote33

Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
34,554
Likes
13,820
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
OK, so we all agree the gun laws are awful. We all complain. We all have suggestions.

What if something useful could come of it?

There are a lot of confusing terms and just bad parts of the law as it is right now. Without being over the top ("shall issue for everyone", "Vermont style", "eliminate Ch 180", etc.), what specific wording changes would make sense to try to propose?

I can think of better definitions, remove the "class A" and "class B" designations to just have LTC and FID, remove FID for pepper/mace, remove the ".38 or smaller at night in the woods", remove the "crossing a paved road with uncased rifle", etc. sort of things.

Is there some way of doing revisions on a document online with the strikethroughs and colors?

I would think if this group could come up with a SOLID list of proposals and then get someone at GOAL to propose it to or through legislators, that it would actually get introduced. Sure, it might get watered down, but we need to start somewhere.

Naysayers, please don't bother replying here with "it'll never happen" because those bad attitudes are precisely why nothing gets done. Just read this and move on if you have nothing constructive to add, thanks.

Those of you who do have something to add, please do. For starters, maybe someone can LIST all the laws regarding firearms, guns, hunting, etc. Maybe post the actual laws. Anything.

Just trying to add something constructive.

Carry on.
 
Last edited:
With all the "noise" complaints that come from people who live near(right on top of) ranges, its high time to legalize the possession and use of suppressors for other than those with a manufacturers FFL.

Other than paranoia, there is no reason that they should be illegal. They would still have to comply with federal registration and tax as they do now in every other state where they are legal to own and use.

When was the last time you heard of someone using a suppressor in a crime in Mass...or anywhere else for that matter?
 
Coyote33: GOAL already proposes such laws every legislative session.

Most don't go anywhere. I suggest that your effort would be better spent at helping GOAL get its laws passed, then it would be writing the law yourself. They've got a better idea of what might get passed and what is hopeless than we do.

At the start of the legislative session (after the first of the year), GOAL's newspaper will have a list of bills that they are supporting. Spend your time lobbying legislators and getting others to do the same.
 
For emphasis:

Coyote33 said:
...Naysayers, please don't bother replying here with "it'll never happen" because those bad attitudes are precisely why nothing gets done. Just read this and move on if you have nothing constructive to add, thanks....
Click to expand...
 
Finalygotabeltfed said:
When was the last time you heard of someone using a suppressor in a crime in Mass...or anywhere else for that matter?
Click to expand...

[laugh2] [laugh2] [rofl] [rofl] [laugh2] [laugh2]

That's what the anti's will say - you should at least be able to hear the illegal gunshots. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

I would remove the trigger lock idea. Make restrictions an exception, rather than the rule (ie - gun clubs would have restriction for sport and target, since they are for the club property, but the average Joe would not have restrictions).

Remove the Police Chief as the "all knowing, all powerful Wizard" when it comes to issuing permits.
 
Great idea!!

There is document sharing software, but I'm not sure if it's something we'd all have to purchase, or if there's an online only thing.

Worst case scenario is that we could post a document/thread to this site and give people access to it.

Maybe a place to start is to have all those who are interested give ideas in a thread, and then one or two people can be assigned the task of compiling them.
 
MSWord allows you to track changes in redline/strikeout format and even keeps track of who made the change. I wouldn't suggest that anyone go out and buy it for this application, but it comes pre-installed on many computers, so I suspect that most everyone has it already.
 
Coyote:

For emphasis:
I suggest that your effort would be better spent at helping GOAL get its laws passed, then it would be writing the law yourself. They've got a better idea of what might get passed and what is hopeless than we do.
Click to expand...

GOAL has trouble getting the laws passed that it proposes because people won't get off their duff to lobby legiscritters (i.e., phone/mail them). Help GOAL convince people to phone/mail them.

40 hours spent doing that will advance our cause better than spending 40 hours writing a bill that no one will push.
 
making the gun laws uniform throughout the state. I mean it's sheer foolishness that you could be denied a CCW permit in one town, then move a few miles into another and gain it with no resistance, or the reverse, be unable to move to a certain town because your CCW would never pass renewal.

Dump the Assault Weapons ban, and restrictions on handguns

Dump ALL restrictions on ammunition....you can get in more trouble with a dixi cup filled with high-test than a box of 9mm with no gun. And you CERTAINLY can't get into much trouble with brass or un-seated bullets.

Allow Chemical agents and electronic stun devices to any persons over the age of 18 unless spesifically restricted by a court order.

That should be a good start!

Arrrr

-Weer'd Beard
 
Doug - just to reiterate what M1911 said - GOAL tries each and every year to get the wording changed, as well as whole bills. While I applaud your attempt to do something to get them changed, do as M1911 suggested. Contact your Rep/Sen on bills that need to get passed and urge folks you know (especially the ones that aren't members here that read all this) to do the same.

Mother
 
I think they should add a handgun hunting season:
Chapter 131: Section 70. Hunting with rifle, revolver or pistol, or by the aid of a dog; primitive firearms

PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

TITLE XIX. AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION

CHAPTER 131. INLAND FISHERIES AND GAME AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES

Chapter 131: Section 70. Hunting with rifle, revolver or pistol, or by the aid of a dog; primitive firearms

Section 70. A person shall not, during the open season when deer may be hunted lawfully with a shotgun, hunt a bird or mammal with a rifle, revolver or pistol or by the aid of a dog, or have in his possession or under his control in any wood or field, a rifle, revolver or pistol, or a dog. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prohibit the use of dogs to hunt waterfowl in coastal waters and salt marshes during the open season on migratory waterfowl.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the director may authorize the use of primitive firearms or shotguns with a rifled bore for hunting during any period when deer may be hunted by means of a firearm under rules and regulations promulgated in accordance with section five.
Click to expand...



I would also ask to remove this one completely:
Chapter 131: Section 67. Rifles, revolvers and pistols; caliber

PART I. ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

TITLE XIX. AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION

CHAPTER 131. INLAND FISHERIES AND GAME AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES

Chapter 131: Section 67. Rifles, revolvers and pistols; caliber

Section 67. A person shall not use or possess, where birds or mammals may be found, any rifle chambered to take larger than twenty-two long rifle ammunition, or any revolver or pistol chambered to take larger than thirty-eight caliber ammunition between the hours of one half hour after sunset to one half hour before sunrise of any day throughout the year.
Click to expand...

Question: Does this preclude someone from carrying a 1911 in .45 auto when they go hiking and plan on maybe being there after sunset or before sunrise even if not hunting? Or is this only applicable during hunting (doesn't seem so)?
 
Last edited:
This past month's GOAL Message indicated that GOAL would again be submitting a number of bills. Details will follow. I assume you ARE a GOAL member, aren't you?
 
Do any of you regularly lobby the legislature on behalf of this or other issues? If so, layout some tactics for the rest of us. In my part of MA, my legislators are actually pro-gun.

Looking at the GOAL ratings (I understand that these may be based on limited information) of the legislators in both houses, there were quite a few more A and B rated candidates than there were C, D, and F candidates.

I don't think that the anti-gun folks would let logic and cold hard facts get in the way of adding more silly regulations, but there are a few folks in the middle who may benefit from a lobbying action.
 
A good start. I hope GOAL will get some police endorsements such as from the chiefs or unions or whatever they can.

Keep the improvements/suggestions coming!
 
Coyote33 said:
A good start. I hope GOAL will get some police endorsements such as from the chiefs or unions or whatever they can.

Keep the improvements/suggestions coming!
Click to expand...

I suggest that you work on converting the MCOPA from a venomous anti-civilian gun ownership group to a group that respects the 2nd-A. I'll give you a year and then report back to us on your successes. [laugh2] [rofl] [laugh] [rofl2]
 
Something small:

LTC A holders having to use trigger locks during transport.I can have my USP right next to me,but in the back of my car I have to use trigger locks on all my rifles..

My Garand is locked up and I forgot the friggin combo..

Something major:

Giving anti-gun chiefs the power to deny a person a LTC A.
 
Last edited:
LenS said:
I suggest that you work on converting the MCOPA from a venomous anti-civilian gun ownership group to a group that respects the 2nd-A. I'll give you a year and then report back to us on your successes. [laugh2] [rofl] [laugh] [rofl2]
Click to expand...

Wait. We've covered this before, and y'all keep coming back with the same tired answers ("Wanna be a test case?" "Do it yourself." "Join GOAL.", "Can't do it." etc.)

I pay GOAL dues to lobby for me, not the other way around.[rolleyes] [jihad] [horse] [popcorn]
 
Talking the talk here won't accomplish anything. GOAL is NOT an active participant here.

Go "do the walk" and then report back . . . And before your retort, I have plans to tackle some things, but they won't be very public as that is NOT how things really work in the State House.
 
Last edited:
After reading this , now I know why I see the same faces at the Mass. Sportsmen's Council meetings on the first Sunday of every month.
Goal is not the only one in town with a Lobbiest trying to get bills throu.
We each file our own bills , and support each others Bill's . If You want to see what We are All up against , come to a meeting .
Even better , if Your club just sit's around whines about Your Gun rights going down the crapper , and doesn't belong and support Your Local County League .
You can join as an associate member.
The bill that passed regarding loaded or unloaded Muzzleloader Was A MSC Bill , for those that wonder if We are able to accomplish anything .
Bob
PS
We have Delegates at meetings from the Islands , and one that lives outside Williamstown , with NY. beyond His backyard.
How far are You from Auburn ?
 
KMaurer said:
And if you think that paying dues is all it takes, then you're definitely part of the problem, not the solution.

Ken
Click to expand...


That is the main problem... Too many gun owners thing that just because they fork out pennies for a GOAL or NRA membership that they deserve their rights be defended...

It takes a hell of a lot more than $30 a year... [thinking]
 
$30 a year? El Cheepo! Between GOAL, GOA, NRA, etc. I donate the price of a premium firearm each year, since 1974 (the year of the Duke). My two cents therefore is its not about guns. Its never been about guns. Its always been about power! Power over the people. Deny them the arms to resist and they become easy pickings for every lamebrain socialist Politically Correct despot that happens to crawl out from under a rock. Somehow we have to work this fact into our arguements when speaking to our legislatures and the press about changing gun laws. Speak only about guns and watch their eyes glaze over. Talk about them losing influence (power) in their own house, and some might wake up. I've seen these same arguements over and over and the only time we made headway was to show our power at the ballot box. The Democrats lost eight years because of us. I doubt if they're foolish enough to tangle again so soon. Their eye is towards 2008. If they sweep the field then, then Katy...bar the door.[horse]
 
The situation in MA will not get any better anytime in the near or distant future.

The vast majority of MA residents including many gun owners agree that the possession and ownership of firearms should be regulated.

I would consider many gun owners that I have spoken with to be a big part of the problem. Even some gun owners have been indoctrinated.
 
Cato said:
The situation in MA will not get any better anytime in the near or distant future.

The vast majority of MA residents including many gun owners agree that the possession and ownership of firearms should be regulated.

I would consider many gun owners that I have spoken with to be a big part of the problem. Even some gun owners have been indoctrinated.
Click to expand...


Define indoctrinated. I consider myself Pro-2nd very much. I do not believe in waiting periods, and a vast majority of what goes down in Mass. The only thing I am for is the requirement for either a basic Hunter or Firearms safety course before being allowed to purchase a firearm or something along those lines.
 
I don't feel its the "vast majority" that feel firearms and possession should be regulated. It all depends on what and how you ask the question and to who. You'll find they mean "the other guys guns should be regulated". Its the old "not in my back yard" syndrome. The shotgunner won't stand up for the pistol owner, the pistol owner doesn't like "assault" weapons. Each feels the other guys guns should be regulated. How far regulated? Banned? I feel the regulation should be minimal to none. I'll compromise and submit to a "shall issue" license" as long as I get something in return for my compromise. Many firearm laws are useless and serve only to harass the citizen and cost taxpayer money. Thats my want for compromise: clean out the garbage laws. Just delete! Don't try to make a silk ear out of a sows purse. The end result is often worse than what was begun with. (phew!).
 
Skald said:
Define indoctrinated.
Click to expand...

Brainwashed.

I consider myself Pro-2nd very much. I do not believe in waiting periods, and a vast majority of what goes down in Mass. The only thing I am for is the requirement for either a basic Hunter or Firearms safety course before being allowed to purchase a firearm or something along those lines.
Click to expand...

A right is only a right if there are no strings attached. If you believe that the State (government) can require that a person take a safety course in order to purchase a firearm then you do not believe that firearm ownership is a right.

This IMHO is part of the problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom