Mass-hole Doubles Down Against 2A in wake of Bruen

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • slsc98

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    May 24, 2012
    6,879
    Escaped MD-stan to WNC Smokies
    The Massachusetts state House of Representatives approved a sweeping gun law that aims at restricting more firearms and cracking down on AR-15-style rifles—after a unanimous coalition of police chiefs in the state publicly opposed it.

    (expect a paywall …

    Massachusetts Lawmakers Pass Sweeping Gun Bill Months After 6–3 Supreme Court Decision


    <snip>
    The Massachusetts state House of Representatives approved a sweeping gun law that aims at restricting more firearms and cracking down on AR-15-style rifles—after a unanimous coalition of police chiefs in the state publicly opposed it.

    The measure, which passed in a 120–38 vote on Oct. 18, prohibits people from carrying firearms into other people's homes without their consent. It also would force major gun components to have serial numbers, which would be registered with the state of Massachusetts, while also expanding the state's "red flag" law that allows a judge to suspend the firearms license of someone who is considered a risk to harming others.

    The legislation advanced in response to the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in 2022 that Americans have the Second Amendment-enshrined right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, according to Democrats in Massachusetts, a state that has long had stringent gun laws.

    "The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision nullified existing components of our gun laws, threatening the safety of the Commonwealth’s residents. With the passage of this
    legislation, the House has once again displayed an unwavering commitment to ensuring that Massachusetts remains one of the safest states in the country," state House Speaker Ronald Mariano, a Democrat, said in a recent statement about the measure and the landmark high court decision.

    The proposal would create new laws that bar firing guns at or near homes and outlaw carrying firearms while intoxicated. It would also prohibit carrying firearms in schools, polling places, and government buildings.

    The bill expands the state’s ban on certain types of rifles, prohibiting new purchases of AR-15-style firearms. It would also ban someone from turning a legal firearm into an automatic weapon.

    The proposal includes an enhanced system to track firearms used in crimes to help curb the flow of illegal guns into the state. It would also modernize the existing firearm registration system while increasing the availability of firearm data for academic and policy use, lawmakers said.

    The state Senate has yet to release its version of a gun bill. It will be up to both Democrat-led chambers to hammer out a single bill to ship to Democrat Gov. Maura Healey’s desk for her signature before it can become law.

    State Rep. Michael Day, the Democrat who authored the bill, claimed that "we are in the midst of a public health crisis and it is unrelenting" before blaming firearms.

    Republicans and gun rights groups say the law overreaches.

    State Rep. Peter Durant, a Republican, said on the floor that he sees only "one goal" in the bill, which is to target law-abiding citizens who own firearms.

    "When the listening tours were going on, when we were having the informational sessions, when this bill was being written, we were all told that the legal gun owner is not the not the target here. We're not going after them," Mr. Durant said, according to a local NBC affiliate station. "But it certainly seems to be that that's exactly what we're doing."

    Another GOP state lawmaker, Rep. David Muradian, said that the "legislation is an egregious infringement on all lawful gun owners, and frankly, all residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."

    "I have had interactions with hundreds if not thousands of constituents within my district on this matter. The resounding question remains: What is the new proposal trying to solve?" he said.

    A coalition of all the Bay State's police chiefs issued a statement saying the bill would affect only lawful gun owners.

    Although disappointed in this very predictable vote—in a proceeding where the House failed to follow their own rules—we applaud those Legislators who recognized that this bill makes no one safer. As we’ve said, the answer lies in the vigorous prosecution of criminals, who have no regard for gun laws, whether old or new. We look forward to addressing this matter with our Senate,” Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association director Mark Leahy told the Boston Herald.

    Gun owners opposed to the bill have said that the measures outlined in the legislation do more to target gun owners than to reduce crime. “All of it goes against us, the lawful people. There’s nothing in there that goes after the criminals,” Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners’ Action League, said, adding that the bill is merely an overreaction to the Supreme Court's decision last year.

    The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision last June, ruled that a state law in New York was unconstitutional because it unlawfully restricted an individual's right to carry a firearm in public.

    The majority affirmed that such a right is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adding that the states can enforce "shall-issue" permitting, meaning that applicants for concealed-carry licenses have to satisfy criteria. But their ruling stipulated that "may-issue" mandates that use arbitrary evaluations that are made by local officials are unconstitutional.

    The Associated Press contributed to this report.
     

    KingClown

    SOmething Witty
    Jul 29, 2020
    1,186
    Deep Blue MD
    Permitting systems need to be challenged before the left packs the court. That would take some wind out of thier sails. Then Sensitive places needs to be challenged so scotus can define them better.
    I want to see tanks in vending machines at walmart
     

    rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,736
    Columbia
    Permitting systems need to be challenged before the left packs the court. That would take some wind out of thier sails. Then Sensitive places needs to be challenged so scotus can define them better.
    I want to see tanks in vending machines at walmart

    Those are great but does very little against clearly unconstitutional crap like this which will again take years in the current court system


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    gamer_jim

    Podcaster
    Feb 12, 2008
    13,377
    Hanover, PA
    What happens if a State ignores SCOTUS ruling?

    If Bruen doesn't have teeth then it doesn't matter. States will continue creating laws, spend years and millions in tax payer to defend it, get defeated at SCOTUS and then repeat.
     

    ChrisD

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 19, 2013
    3,053
    Conowingo
    "When the listening tours were going on, when we were having the informational sessions, when this bill was being written, we were all told that the legal gun owner is not the not the target here. We're not going after them," Mr. Durant said, according to a local NBC affiliate station. "But it certainly seems to be that that's exactly what we're doing."

    Above copied from the body of OP. Democrats doing what they always do. Always expect them to do the exact opposite from what they say.
     

    Ponder_MD

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2020
    4,641
    Maryland
    Will the unanimous coalition of police chiefs refuse to enforce and publicly state their intention?
    It worked pretty well in New Mexico.
     

    babalou

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 12, 2013
    16,181
    Glenelg
    Those are great but does very little against clearly unconstitutional crap like this which will again take years in the current court system


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    unconstitutional crap should not. Should be dropped immediately. Why is it that pro 2A stuff passed gets reversed immediately yet anti- 2A stuff passes and has to go through years of bull shite?
     

    CrueChief

    Cocker Dad/RIP Bella
    Apr 3, 2009
    3,057
    Napolis-ish
    What happens if a State ignores SCOTUS ruling?

    If Bruen doesn't have teeth then it doesn't matter. States will continue creating laws, spend years and millions in tax payer to defend it, get defeated at SCOTUS and then repeat.
    Nothing SCOTUS doesn't have an enforcement arm.
     

    Bob A

    όυ φροντισ
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 11, 2009
    31,007
    Any criminal case from an already declared unconstitutional law would (hopefully) be immediately thrown out.
    Except in NY, MD, CA, MA, NJ . . . Onward to appeals, bankruptcy and death from old age.
     

    rbird7282

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 6, 2012
    18,736
    Columbia
    unconstitutional crap should not. Should be dropped immediately. Why is it that pro 2A stuff passed gets reversed immediately yet anti- 2A stuff passes and has to go through years of bull shite?
    Yep. Our court system is broken in that it takes far too long for cases to come to a conclusion and they should be able to drop unconstitutional stuff much faster.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,621
    Messages
    7,288,673
    Members
    33,489
    Latest member
    Nelsonbencasey

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom