Perhaps an amendment for the protection of kittens and unicorns that removes the 10 round mag ban?
I wish.... But not very likely.
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.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
Perhaps an amendment for the protection of kittens and unicorns that removes the 10 round mag ban?
OP has July 10 GOAL communication:
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact...00e00&ch=e0ef74f0-35e1-11e3-9453-d4ae52900e00
he National Instant Check System (NICS) sections were drastically changed by ensuring that people voluntarily seeking mental health treatment or observation are not to be considered a prohibited person and therefore not reported to the NICS.
This bill appears better than the last bill but is that merely to quiet us and give a feeling of content among the people who oppose ANY 2A RESTRICTIONS?
I just read todays statement from GOAL & they seem pleased with the bill.
I hope the early optimism being publicly expressed from them as well as some forum members here doesnt lead to a quick passing of further restrictions & infringements of 2A rights...
I still OPPOSE this bill as it stands and hope GOAL does as well...
they would have put this in the house bill if it had any chance of passing. if the senate adds it it still has to get cleared by the house I believe. highly unlikely they add ANYthing to the bill
| ||
|
Does anyone recall the name of the Freshman rep. that gave the defacto victory speech before the vote yesterday... the two yr. uniformed/14 yr. detective that stated on the record he'd not once arrested a licensed gun owner in more than 240+ career interactions for gun violations?
tia
Mb
Interesting.
Among the GOAL commentary at that link, it says:
This doesn't seem quite right to me.
Consider the exact same person who seems to be going through some mental issues:
A) Family or friends notify "authorities" and they come and take him but he goes peacefully. Loses his 2A rights
B) SAME person realizes he is going nuts, and calls for the SAME help at the SAME treatment center. Doesn't lose his rights.
Just because he self-reported instead of having his mom narc on him, he's all of-a-sudden OK enough to not be reported to NICS?
Same person.
Anyone a LEO, or know one, and if so, what's the word among the LEO community regarding their new-found "FID suitability power to deny?"
For the sake of accuracy, I'm going to point out that this amendment only increased the penalties associated with the existing law that's already on the books. (Read it yourself here: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter269/Section10E)
It only applies to unlawful transfers, lending your kid a shotgun to shoot trap is not an unlawful transfer.
SECTION XX: Section 10E of Chapter 269 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2012 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking the section in its entirety and inserting in place thereof the following:
Section 10E. Whoever, except as provided by law, in a single transaction or occurrence or in a series of transactions within a twelve month period, knowingly or intentionally distributes, sells, or transfers possession of a quantity of firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, or any combination thereof, shall, if the quantity of firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, or any combination thereof is
(1) One or more, but less than three, be punished by a term of imprisonment of not more than ten years in the state prison or by a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars may be imposed or by both such imprisonment and fine.
Really? How do you conclude that? I am reading this and I do not see that.
If you think this is referring to unlawful transactions, think again. This would exempt Firearms dealers from this. This amendment appears to be 1 transfer PER YEAR. Someone please tell me I am wrong and why.
The only way to read this differently is that someone without an LTC/FID could do 1 private transfer/ year.
Seriously, someone look at this and tell me jasons is correct and I am reading this wrong.
a lawful transfer is provided by lawexcept as provided by law
And he is not our friend.Representative Silva from Fall River.
Really? How do you conclude that? I am reading this and I do not see that.
If you think this is referring to unlawful transactions, think again. This would exempt Firearms dealers from this. This amendment appears to be 1 transfer PER YEAR. Someone please tell me I am wrong and why.
The only way to read this differently is that someone without an LTC/FID could do 1 private transfer/ year.
Seriously, someone look at this and tell me jasons is correct and I am reading this wrong.
I think that is the part that refers to legal transfers....as it is now.except as provided by law
Really? How do you conclude that? I am reading this and I do not see that.
If you think this is referring to unlawful transactions, think again. This would exempt Firearms dealers from this. This amendment appears to be 1 transfer PER YEAR. Someone please tell me I am wrong and why.
The only way to read this differently is that someone without an LTC/FID could do 1 private transfer/ year.
Seriously, someone look at this and tell me jasons is correct and I am reading this wrong.
Seriously, someone look at this and tell me jasons is correct and I am reading this wrong.
you are wrong, a lawful transfer is provided by law
Does it explain the "legal expenses" associated with the "legal recourse"? Most attorneys charge at least $250/hr or more. Can the deniee, if successful in court, not only obtain his/her FID or LTC and recoup their legal costs from the city or town where they were denied? How about court costs? These questions are noticeably absent from the debate.When you ask them, use the phrase "new mandated responsibility to justify in writing the reason for denial, and subsequent legal recourse for the deniee". It's all about perspective.
It is provided by law that LTC/FID holders can transfer up to 4 firearms per calendar year.
nd if this is meant for illegal gun sales only shouldn't it be part of sec 10E?
No. You either didn't read the bill, you misunderstood it, or are going off what others are saying. Youth shooting programs are protected in this billChiefs will have the power to shut down all Juniors programs in their city or town and prohibit hunting by youths, if this bill passes. Heck, they could completely disarm their city or town by refusing to issue any LTCs or FIDs to anyone other than police officers. Don't like it? Pony up thousands of $$$$ and take it to a court, whose judge will probably side with the chief's decision anyway. Me? I am just about done here. My girlfriend and I closed on our brand-new home in coastal south Alabama two weeks ago (half the price of a used home of similar size here!). Alabama does not require FIDs or any type of license to own a gun. If you wish to carry concealed, you apply to the local sheriff's department for a CCW permit (easy to get and unrestricted, from what a few of the local gunshop Bubbas told me). I feel sorry for anyone stuck in MA. The pols have all MA gun owners over a barrel and keep twisting the screws ever tighter!
OK, so other than the 15 - 20 year olds, and the FUDDs who only need to be licensed for their trap guns, wouldn't just about everyone else go for the LTC, then?
Unintended consequence to the state = more people eligible to own and carry handguns.
Much appreciated... Thank you.Representative Silva from Fall River.
There just aren't that many people in this situation though. According to the data at http://comm2a.org/index.php/8-home/197-licensing, there are 34K FIDs and 300k LTCs. A significant number of FIDs are held by people aged 15-20. I'm guessing the the people who are eligible for an LTC but have an FID is ~10K or less.
Even better... He's on the record, on the speakers behalf, acknowledging that legal gun owners are not the problem... I can use that in my contact with my senatorAnd he is not our friend.