-
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.
What's this Linsky's problem with guns?
- Thread starter CAESAR
- Start date
So in MA, you need your local Chiefs permission and a background check to get a license. When you buy a new gun you need a Fed check and the eFA10, for a FtF you have to see the license and do an eFA10 (which I assume validates the license). And that's now.
He wants to add a requirement that the eFA10 on a FtF MUST be done at a dealer. Question: what dealer is going to do a "transfer" with that eFA10 that is not going to also do the the Fed check? Answer: NONE. So is that $25 fee supposed to cover both? Or will the dealers charge for the state transfer AND the Fed transfer? I wouldn't blame them, it's twice the work. And I'm sure the dealers will love have non-buying customers hanging around for hours when the system gets backed up.
Exactly how many different background checks does he think are needed?
You won't defeat this by saying "we don't need it". Get it shot down in committee by saying "we already have this".
And wouldn't it be funny if his office started getting hundreds of postcards, just blank ones, with pictures of farm animals on them. No words, no threats, no demeaning language, just the pictures.... I'm sure he, and his office staff, will get the point. Someone with a national following needs to pick up this idea. It'll be fun.
He wants to add a requirement that the eFA10 on a FtF MUST be done at a dealer. Question: what dealer is going to do a "transfer" with that eFA10 that is not going to also do the the Fed check? Answer: NONE. So is that $25 fee supposed to cover both? Or will the dealers charge for the state transfer AND the Fed transfer? I wouldn't blame them, it's twice the work. And I'm sure the dealers will love have non-buying customers hanging around for hours when the system gets backed up.
Exactly how many different background checks does he think are needed?
You won't defeat this by saying "we don't need it". Get it shot down in committee by saying "we already have this".
And wouldn't it be funny if his office started getting hundreds of postcards, just blank ones, with pictures of farm animals on them. No words, no threats, no demeaning language, just the pictures.... I'm sure he, and his office staff, will get the point. Someone with a national following needs to pick up this idea. It'll be fun.
It's not just Linsky.
His co petitioners:
Jack Patrick Lewis 7th Middlesex
Ruth B. Balser 12th Middlesex
Christine P. Barber 34th Middlesex
Michael J. Barrett Third Middlesex
Michelle L. Ciccolo 15th Middlesex
Julian Cyr Cape and Islands
Michael S. Day 31st Middlesex
Marjorie C. Decker 25th Middlesex
Mindy Domb 3rd Hampshire
William J. Driscoll, Jr. 7th Norfolk
Lori A. Ehrlich 8th Essex
James B. Eldridge Middlesex and Worcester
Dylan A. Fernandes Barnstable, Dukes and Nantucket
Ann-Margaret Ferrante 5th Essex
Sean Garballey 23rd Middlesex
Denise C. Garlick 13th Norfolk
Carmine Lawrence Gentile 13th Middlesex
Kenneth I. Gordon 21st Middlesex
Danielle W. Gregoire 4th Middlesex
Jonathan Hecht 29th Middlesex
Bradley H. Jones, Jr. 20th Middlesex
Mary S. Keefe 15th Worcester
James M. Kelcourse 1st Essex
Kay Khan 11th Middlesex
Adrian C. Madaro 1st Suffolk
Elizabeth A. Malia 11th Suffolk
Paul McMurtry 11th Norfolk
Liz Miranda 5th Suffolk
Michael J. Moran 18th Suffolk
Alice Hanlon Peisch 14th Norfolk
Rebecca L. Rausch Norfolk, Bristol and Middlesex
Maria Duaime Robinson 6th Middlesex
David M. Rogers 24th Middlesex
Daniel J. Ryan 2nd Suffolk
Jon Santiago 9th Suffolk
Andres X. Vargas 3rd Essex
Aaron Vega 5th Hampden
Tommy Vitolo 15th Norfolk
His co petitioners:
Jack Patrick Lewis 7th Middlesex
Ruth B. Balser 12th Middlesex
Christine P. Barber 34th Middlesex
Michael J. Barrett Third Middlesex
Michelle L. Ciccolo 15th Middlesex
Julian Cyr Cape and Islands
Michael S. Day 31st Middlesex
Marjorie C. Decker 25th Middlesex
Mindy Domb 3rd Hampshire
William J. Driscoll, Jr. 7th Norfolk
Lori A. Ehrlich 8th Essex
James B. Eldridge Middlesex and Worcester
Dylan A. Fernandes Barnstable, Dukes and Nantucket
Ann-Margaret Ferrante 5th Essex
Sean Garballey 23rd Middlesex
Denise C. Garlick 13th Norfolk
Carmine Lawrence Gentile 13th Middlesex
Kenneth I. Gordon 21st Middlesex
Danielle W. Gregoire 4th Middlesex
Jonathan Hecht 29th Middlesex
Bradley H. Jones, Jr. 20th Middlesex
Mary S. Keefe 15th Worcester
James M. Kelcourse 1st Essex
Kay Khan 11th Middlesex
Adrian C. Madaro 1st Suffolk
Elizabeth A. Malia 11th Suffolk
Paul McMurtry 11th Norfolk
Liz Miranda 5th Suffolk
Michael J. Moran 18th Suffolk
Alice Hanlon Peisch 14th Norfolk
Rebecca L. Rausch Norfolk, Bristol and Middlesex
Maria Duaime Robinson 6th Middlesex
David M. Rogers 24th Middlesex
Daniel J. Ryan 2nd Suffolk
Jon Santiago 9th Suffolk
Andres X. Vargas 3rd Essex
Aaron Vega 5th Hampden
Tommy Vitolo 15th Norfolk
Tread carefully folks. Linsky hates guns and individual freedom, and he's willing to "bend the truth" (lie) and omit details he finds unfavorable, but do not for a moment believe that he is stupid. I've seen him explain nuances of the law, e.g. Heller and McDonald, accurately, correctly, and concisely.
Most of the stuff he proposes has insane overreach, and he knows it. I have a recording of him admitting in a forum that he proposed some high tax on (guns or ammo, I don't recall) to "just see what kind of reaction I'd get from the other side" (paraphrasing). He knows most of the crazy proposals won't pass, and he's trolling. The anti-gun people in Natick eat it up and thank him for all the work he's doing.
This new proposal is dangerous precisely because it's not as "crazy" as his usual bills. The "non" reps (not anti and not pro-gun) that usually brush aside his proposals may give this some traction if they buy his line about "closing a loophole" and lie about being out of sync with federal background checks. Keep in mind that the Speaker of the House pretty much controls everything on the House side. On the Senate side - Spilka is now in charge, and since they share districts there might be some give-and-take from her on letting some of his "less crazy" things through the senate to "close a loophole".
Most of the stuff he proposes has insane overreach, and he knows it. I have a recording of him admitting in a forum that he proposed some high tax on (guns or ammo, I don't recall) to "just see what kind of reaction I'd get from the other side" (paraphrasing). He knows most of the crazy proposals won't pass, and he's trolling. The anti-gun people in Natick eat it up and thank him for all the work he's doing.
This new proposal is dangerous precisely because it's not as "crazy" as his usual bills. The "non" reps (not anti and not pro-gun) that usually brush aside his proposals may give this some traction if they buy his line about "closing a loophole" and lie about being out of sync with federal background checks. Keep in mind that the Speaker of the House pretty much controls everything on the House side. On the Senate side - Spilka is now in charge, and since they share districts there might be some give-and-take from her on letting some of his "less crazy" things through the senate to "close a loophole".
Careful, that might turn Linsky on...
amm5061
NES Member
Ah f*** me. Naturally my district rep would be right at the f***ing top of that list.
![[banghead]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/045.gif "Bang Head [banghead]")
GeorgeMason
NES Member
This will pass with flying colors.
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,195
- Likes
- 33,138
Them and me both. It was only a matter of time.
Forget the fact that the current system ensures that you sell it to a licensed gun owner instead of just any tool or it's YOUR ass. Instead, you have to go to a shop. Now, if I'm John Jacob Criminal, not only would I have not used the previous system, I DEFINITELY won't use the new one. I mean, DUHHH! Another law. No one saved. Costs us millions per year potentially. All blows chunks.
On the flip side, there will be some cottage-industry folk in Littleton and Rockland that will be able to process transfers for reasonable money.
CAESAR
NES Member
how you find who is yours?
I think there's a good chance of stopping this, but some risk that it gets through. Note GOAL's nuanced response in the news articles: e.g. Linsky: Gun buy bill closes 'dangerous' loophole
GOAL Executive Director Jim Wallace said private gun owners in Massachusetts are restricted to four transfers in a calendar year, and both the seller and buyer need to have gun licenses, so have already undergone background checks.
“The way I’m looking at a lot of this stuff now is, what problem exists that you’re trying to solve?” Wallace told the News Service. “And not a perceived problem, but what problem exists?”
We all know that Linsky is trolling, lying about "loopholes", and trying to make life difficult for legal gun owners. But GOAL isn't taking the bait. GOAL has the right approach here. We can point out that we recently went through "comprehensive" reform of the law that resulted in the current "portal" approach. There is no evidence that there is a problem with this current approach, or that it will increase public safety in any way.
There's a difference between "can" and "will". If everyone is just going to roll over and do nothing about it, and not even bother firing off a letter or a call to their
reps or senators about it, then yeah, it will definitely pass, and then a bunch of people will be here crying about it even though they did nothing. Given the built in
redundancy of this bill, at least from an "argument" standpoint, this isn't like ERPO where its difficult to sell an argument against it with a layperson. Basically this proposal
is for a law to further regulate the behavior of a ton of people already heavily vetted by the state. The only purpose of this bill is to antagonize gun owners, there's no net
increase to public safety, real or imagined, particularly given MA's existing laws. Unlike other states, in MA, -any- "universal background check" law is attempting to close a "hole" that doesn't actually exist and likely hasn't existed for many decades. We've already all gone through an anal probe exam, why should someone have to pay a dealer to submit to additional unnecessary anal probe exams just to sell 1-4 guns to another person or persons with the same qualifications?
-Mike
The only thing wrong with the GOAL statement above is that Jim did not point out that when the individuals (or a dealer) use the eFA-10 portal, it DOES an instant background check with the state's records each time too.
If it passes this is going to have an opposite effect that Linksy and his co-sponsors want. How will anyone be able to build and register (offlist guns and AR's etc) if everything has to go through a dealer?? Many will say F it I won't register it.
45collector
NES Member
Right after Healeyban a bunch of people already started doing that in droves, they have been saying "Why should I bother to comply with an entity that says that it can just make the rules up as it goes along, because after all, at this point, being compliant with the actual law would appear to no longer act as a sure method to block prosecution. ?"
-Mike
You are right on point. It's a dangerous thing to simply brush someone off as crazy or stupid because you don't agree with their ideas. But if he is in the heads of people who show up and vote, then his ridiculous ideas might just pass. Sort of like price negotiation, start fairly out there and then deal down, but either way something will get passed.
I agree with a few on here, that I'm 99% sure that this will pass in MA. We are becoming the left's poster child for gun laws and 2020 is next year.
slap shot
NES Member
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,195
- Likes
- 33,138
I'm still confused about a point.
I see PLENTY of guys on this board, late in teh year, selling non-compliant guns and are out of their 4 transfers. "Transfer to be done at my local shop." So is transferring on his/her books legal or illegal for these local dealers. He isn't SELLING the gun, he's overseeing the transfer.
What about those with property in multiple states? Buy a gun in NH or FL or wherever and bring it back to Mass. How to "register" it???? Go to a gun shop to transfer a gun from yourself TO yourself???
Ugh.
I see PLENTY of guys on this board, late in teh year, selling non-compliant guns and are out of their 4 transfers. "Transfer to be done at my local shop." So is transferring on his/her books legal or illegal for these local dealers. He isn't SELLING the gun, he's overseeing the transfer.
What about those with property in multiple states? Buy a gun in NH or FL or wherever and bring it back to Mass. How to "register" it???? Go to a gun shop to transfer a gun from yourself TO yourself???
Ugh.
It sucks, but I think making gun ownership/transferring is the entire idea. They aren't banning guns, they are just making it extremely difficult to own, sell, transfer one. In their mind, they aren't infringing upon "ownership" rights.
Time to get my 01 I guess.
one-eyed Jack
Manufacturer
No. Get the 07. That and the SOT opens the door to NFA stuff. Jack.
This little weasel again. I’ll dig around for my old post but I had a run in with him while he was campaigning a few years ago, didn’t know anything about him at the time til I started reading here, but he mouthed off to me and I pretty much told him I’d choke him out right there if he talks to me like that again.
As I was reading the OP I was thinking to myself, “Ya, Natick’s so dangerous he needs all this gun control BS, next we’ll have some kind of incident here with mysterious timing”, and whala, we have the Natick Hotel Active Shooter, now he has all the backing he’ll need from the hippies there. How much did he pay those Jussie Smolletts for that action on camera??
As I was reading the OP I was thinking to myself, “Ya, Natick’s so dangerous he needs all this gun control BS, next we’ll have some kind of incident here with mysterious timing”, and whala, we have the Natick Hotel Active Shooter, now he has all the backing he’ll need from the hippies there. How much did he pay those Jussie Smolletts for that action on camera??
