Big John! 2,062 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 Here ya go boys... Thursday night, in the waning hours of Massachusetts’ legislative session, its House and Senate passed H.4376. Seemingly out of definable categories of persons to deny the right to arms, this bill would make Massachusetts the first state in which an individual’s right to acquire any type of firearm would be subject to the discretion of a government official. The bill went through numerous versions, some better and some worse than H.4376. At one hopeful point, the discretionary provision was removed from the Senate version of the bill. After lobbying by several current and former Massachusetts police chiefs — the very sorts of officials whose authority over individual rights would be expanded under the bill — a “compromise” was reached by a committee of the House and Senate. The new provision would allow issuing officials to deny the mandatory license needed to obtain a firearm on any basis of risk they could think of, subject to a court’s determination they had proven their case by a preponderance of evidence (a far lesser standard than required for conviction of a crime). If there is any question of how some officials view the authority they expect to gain from the bill, Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans made it clear how a discretionary provision would be used in Boston. As we reported last week, in an interview with Boston Public Radio, Commissioner Evans claimed that “[f]or the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun, nobody needs a rifle, . . . I want to have discretion over who’s getting any type of gun because public safety is my main concern and as you know it’s an uphill battle taking as many guns off the street right now without pumping more into the system.” Just what sort of theories licensing officials will come up with to exercise their discretion under the bill is anybody’s guess. A past version of the bill would have expanded the automatic “prohibited person” categories to cover many new misdemeanors. This was eliminated from the final version of the bill, but the discretionary provision could be used to deny applicants licenses based not just on convictions but on mere arrests or police contacts that never led to judgments by a court. Another provision of H.4376 seems to make clear that the intent of the discretionary provision is to significantly expand who would be prohibited from possessing firearms. That provision would require the collection and reporting of convictions of a number of misdemeanor crimes that are not prohibiting under federal or Massachusetts law. Clearly, somebody thinks this information will be considered relevant in who does and does not “deserve” a firearm. While H.4376 did contain some beneficial provisions for gun owners, leaving the mere exercise of the right to arms up to the discretion of government officials was a deal-breaking and unprecedented overreach by the legislature. Yet this is far from the bill’s only problem. It also imposes increased penalties for violations of so-called “lost or stolen” and “safe-storage” laws, the creation of new crimes that might be used to prosecute those who use their firearms defensively, and a provision that encourages doctors to intrude on their patients’ privacy to discuss firearm ownership. The bill has not yet been signed into law, but Governor Deval Patrick has already signaled his support. H.4376 is yet another example of the importance of electing representatives who will support the Second Amendment. Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/08/05/massachusetts-legislature-breaks-new-ground-in-gun-control/#ixzz39w266apK Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gunman1 1,753 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 It's a bird, it's a plane, no it just your rights flying out the window 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hornsj2 27 Posted August 9, 2014 Report Share Posted August 9, 2014 When I watch or read updates about that marine in Mexico who got stuck in prison because he accidentally brought firearms across the border, I am reminded that the exact same thing is going to happen to me if I happen to have forgotten to remove a firearm, magazine, or even a spent cartridge case in my trunk when crossing the border into Mass every morning to go to work. Two words: manadatory minimums. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VR762Shooter 838 Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 The greatest majority of the new laws impact would be under 21 y/o individuals. That along with the additional discretionary items and mandatory school counseling basically lead to them trying to further disarm young shooters and make guns evil and scary to those with an interest at a young age. I am really hoping that they fight this in court. Our local 2A awareness group has been preaching how much we want this bill. Sucks that even pro-2A groups you pay money to for advocacy, just allow the state to take rights under the guise of "well it's better than what coulda happened" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Big John! 2,062 Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 The greatest majority of the new laws impact would be under 21 y/o individuals. That along with the additional discretionary items and mandatory school counseling basically lead to them trying to further disarm young shooters and make guns evil and scary to those with an interest at a young age. I am really hoping that they fight this in court. Our local 2A awareness group has been preaching how much we want this bill. Sucks that even pro-2A groups you pay money to for advocacy, just allow the state to take rights under the guise of "well it's better than what coulda happened" Let me make sure I understand this... You belong to a 2A group that thinks this is ok??? If so, may I recommend that you stand up to your 2A group and let them know that this is not acceptable... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Capt Nemo 882 Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 I only see a violation of SCOTUS ruling Presser vs. Illinois. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DLT 1,646 Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 (edited) This shit needs to go to court asap and get properly bitch slapped. Edited August 10, 2014 by DLT 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VR762Shooter 838 Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 The greatest majority of the new laws impact would be under 21 y/o individuals. That along with the additional discretionary items and mandatory school counseling basically lead to them trying to further disarm young shooters and make guns evil and scary to those with an interest at a young age. I am really hoping that they fight this in court. Our local 2A awareness group has been preaching how much we want this bill. Sucks that even pro-2A groups you pay money to for advocacy, just allow the state to take rights under the guise of "well it's better than what coulda happened" Let me make sure I understand this... You belong to a 2A group that thinks this is ok???If so, may I recommend that you stand up to your 2A group and let them know that this is not acceptable... Yeah, imagine that? Our same group also originally agreed that the "Assault" ban in 98 was acceptable because it lengthened carry permits from a 4 year renewal span to a 6 year.....I as well as many have already voiced opinions to them but you can't change how people in this state think. I just hope it goes to court and is thrown out Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sim_Player 1,939 Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 (edited) If someone can't be trusted with a firearm, due to mental instability, shouldn't they be locked up? Just saying.. The Progressive Liberal thinking created the problem by closing the mental hospitals and now they want to take away rights from mentally stable people. Edited August 10, 2014 by Sim_Player 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Maxwelhse 1,285 Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 The greatest majority of the new laws impact would be under 21 y/o individuals. That along with the additional discretionary items and mandatory school counseling basically lead to them trying to further disarm young shooters and make guns evil and scary to those with an interest at a young age. I am really hoping that they fight this in court. Our local 2A awareness group has been preaching how much we want this bill. Sucks that even pro-2A groups you pay money to for advocacy, just allow the state to take rights under the guise of "well it's better than what coulda happened" Let me make sure I understand this... You belong to a 2A group that thinks this is ok???If so, may I recommend that you stand up to your 2A group and let them know that this is not acceptable... Yeah, imagine that? Our same group also originally agreed that the "Assault" ban in 98 was acceptable because it lengthened carry permits from a 4 year renewal span to a 6 year.....I as well as many have already voiced opinions to them but you can't change how people in this state think. I just hope it goes to court and is thrown out I hope you don't pay this "group" any dues and simply show up to the meetings, or whatever, to be a voice of logic where there obviously is none. ----- That shit needs to get to the court ASAP before Barry loads up the Scotus with more douche bags. I just can't believe that so many states are in a drag race to reach and exceed the level of success as Kalifornia. This shit makes no sense. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
yakdung 2,926 Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/08/09/gun-law-overhaul-among-bills-awaiting-mass-governors-signature/ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VR762Shooter 838 Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 The greatest majority of the new laws impact would be under 21 y/o individuals. That along with the additional discretionary items and mandatory school counseling basically lead to them trying to further disarm young shooters and make guns evil and scary to those with an interest at a young age. I am really hoping that they fight this in court. Our local 2A awareness group has been preaching how much we want this bill. Sucks that even pro-2A groups you pay money to for advocacy, just allow the state to take rights under the guise of "well it's better than what coulda happened" Let me make sure I understand this... You belong to a 2A group that thinks this is ok???If so, may I recommend that you stand up to your 2A group and let them know that this is not acceptable... Yeah, imagine that? Our same group also originally agreed that the "Assault" ban in 98 was acceptable because it lengthened carry permits from a 4 year renewal span to a 6 year.....I as well as many have already voiced opinions to them but you can't change how people in this state think. I just hope it goes to court and is thrown out I hope you don't pay this "group" any dues and simply show up to the meetings, or whatever, to be a voice of logic where there obviously is none. . I do, got a 3 year membership which will not expire until 11/15. I will say the gun advocacy group we have (http://www.goal.org) did a lot to bring it to a more reasonable bill than the original house bill was. They were looking to require all guns owned registered at license renewal, anything classified as a hi cap mag being registered with police, increased penalties for failure to report stolen items including mags, as well as a very early bill wanting all "Assault Weapons" only able to be stored at a gun club and inaccessible to owners unless being transferred for sale or used under instruction at a range. I am not happy that they are accepting of the bill, they should tell the shit straight that it's fluff bill and won't stop shit. If they did that I'd feel a lot better about it. I'm proud to pay the dues though, as if we didn't have them speaking for us with the legislature here we would have got all the bad stuff local libs were calling for Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Big John! 2,062 Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 After moving to a free(er) state, I'm pretty sure I couldn't live in a state like that again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VR762Shooter 838 Posted August 10, 2014 Report Share Posted August 10, 2014 If I can find a home in southern NH I may be able to con the wife into moving. As it sits now she doesn't want to move away from her family. That's really the only thing holding me here still Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.