Well said, Jim! Let's not for a moment think that this is it. This is just the beginning of an effort that will continue to require our diligence and hard work to undue the years of civil rights abuse in Massachusetts.
-
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 May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Statement from GOAL Executive Director Jim Wallace in regards to McDonald v. Chicago.
What will be the immediate consequences for us in MA? For example I have an LTC-A for "target and hunting". Can I get this thing lifted? I never even had a parking ticket in my life, OK maybe one when I was living in Cambridge 25 years ago! I am sure our elected officials will find a way to delay and dilute any actions or even do something that will force us to go to court and wait another couple of years. We have a lot of work in front of us.
this is just a baby step. the decision only addresses handguns in the home nothing about carrying![[frown]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/003.gif "Frown [frown]")
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,602
- Likes
- 33,714
Unfortuantely not. Neither Heller nor McDonald touch on "carry" (in the normal, not the MA, definition of the word.
Nope. The Heller decision resulted in an order that a license be issued to the applicant if he is not a disqualified person; it did not establish one did not need a license. As Jim so nicely put, an expected interpretation would be that the state must now prove the applicant unsuitable, not the other way around.
Because what they consider "reasonable" restrictions and what a sane person would consider "reasonable" restrictions are two entirely different things.
They know that any legal challenge will take years, and in the meantime they can run for reelection and say they passed "needed legislation to take guns off the street and reduce crime." And after they're comfortably reelected by the barking moonbats in the Commonwealth, the law will be found unconstitutional and overturned. Of course, at that point they'll propose another feel-good, do-nothing law that will also have to be reviewed in the court system ... lather, rinse, repeat.
Now, more than ever. If you're not a member of the NRA or GOAL, you need to join.
They did mention something about carry in sensitive areas so the subject was broached...and after all the operative language of the 2nd does say "keep and bear". It's hard to determine just how important this ruling was.
A comment and a Q:
Comment, 4/5 decision is scary. That there are 4 of them who would judge against is freakin' scary, and sad.
Q: Obviously, this decision is all good, but what has really changed in Washington? That is, has it actually gotten any easier for people in DC? It's my understanding that they have done what anti gun types always do when they lose, simply ignore the fact that they lost! So they ignore the legal ruling, continue to ignore people their Const. Rights, and bury people in paper work, hoops, etc, effectively preventing gun ownership.
So anyone comment on what has happened in DC since that last ruling? It's my understanding the mayor of Chicago has already indicated he has every intention of (to cut through it BS politico speak) ignoring the ruling because he's not happy with the outcome. This seems also the general strategy of anti gun forces in MA.
Typical of anti gun types, laws are only worth following when they support your agenda, not so much when they support the spirit and clear intent of the Const.
Thoughts/comments?
Comment, 4/5 decision is scary. That there are 4 of them who would judge against is freakin' scary, and sad.
Q: Obviously, this decision is all good, but what has really changed in Washington? That is, has it actually gotten any easier for people in DC? It's my understanding that they have done what anti gun types always do when they lose, simply ignore the fact that they lost! So they ignore the legal ruling, continue to ignore people their Const. Rights, and bury people in paper work, hoops, etc, effectively preventing gun ownership.
So anyone comment on what has happened in DC since that last ruling? It's my understanding the mayor of Chicago has already indicated he has every intention of (to cut through it BS politico speak) ignoring the ruling because he's not happy with the outcome. This seems also the general strategy of anti gun forces in MA.
Typical of anti gun types, laws are only worth following when they support your agenda, not so much when they support the spirit and clear intent of the Const.
Thoughts/comments?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,602
- Likes
- 33,714
The number of non-LEO who obtained new permits to possess a handgun between the 1976 ban and Heller - Zero.
The number who obtained them after the ban - 800 and counting.
Good to know. That's the type of info I was looking for/hoping to hear. Is there a good write up on the DC situation since the last ruling with additional stats like that? How draconian DC has made it for people? Number of people who applied vs "approved" and all that?
GOAL, yes... NRA not so much!!![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
In as much a a lot of us feel the NRA has abandoned us here in PRM, they ARE a powerful lobby for us in DC. Just keep that in mind. I myself think they can be largely full of hot air, and sometimes seen as being out only for themselves-but Washington is run by lobbyists-and currently, they are the ones in our corner.
Can I get a source/cite on that? I want to post that info, but need a source/cite to cut off the obvious back peddle of anti types to that info.
Similar threads
