Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signs sweeping anti-NRA gun bill into law

[kidrocks]

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick rocks!







Gov. Deval Patrick signs sweeping gun bill into law | MSNBC

In a move likely to further raise his profile and popularity within the Democratic Party, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed bipartisan gun-safety legislation Wednesday that will grant police chiefs the authority to prevent certain individuals from obtaining firearms licenses.

The sweeping new measure, effective immediately, is the first of its kind in the country. It most notably allows Massachusetts law enforcement officials the ability to withhold a firearm identification (FID) card from a resident who poses a threat to public safety. Before Patrick signed the bill on Wednesday, police chiefs could only prohibit someone from obtaining a license for a handgun, not for a rifle or shotgun. The chiefs will now have 90 days to appear in court to defend their reasoning for the denial of a license to a certain individual.

 

[R.C. Christian]

I couldn't give less of an F about what happens in "Massachewshits".

 

[g5000]

As long as this kind of thing stays on the state level, no problem.

 

[kidrocks]

As long as this kind of thing stays on the state level, no problem.

You'll say that until it comes to your state.

 

[nodoginnafight]

As long as this kind of thing stays on the state level, no problem.

Well ... the 14th Amendment says a state cannot deny a right that belongs to all U.S. citizens.

 

[g5000]

As long as this kind of thing stays on the state level, no problem.

You'll say that until it comes to your state.

Isn't that what "states rights" is all about? A state denying a suicidal whackadoo the ability to get a gun is not a violation of the Second Amendment. So it is win/win as long as this stays on the state level.

 

[kidrocks]

I couldn't give less of an F about what happens in "Massachewshits".

Romneycare = Obamacare. Obamacare is now the law of the land. How long before...

 

[martybegan]

As long as this kind of thing stays on the state level, no problem.

except the 2nd has been incorporated to the States.

Will the police provide protection to the person denied their rights for 90 days?

 

[Sunni Man]

Gov. Deval Patrick is Obama's personal Mini-Me. ...

 

[martybegan]

As long as this kind of thing stays on the state level, no problem.

You'll say that until it comes to your state.

Isn't that what "states right" is all about?

Then my state will decide whether it wants to deny a suicidal whackadoo the ability to get a gun. Okay. No problem.

Again, will the state then provide 24/7 protection to said person denied their rights?

 

[martybegan]

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick rocks!







Gov. Deval Patrick signs sweeping gun bill into law | MSNBC

In a move likely to further raise his profile and popularity within the Democratic Party, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed bipartisan gun-safety legislation Wednesday that will grant police chiefs the authority to prevent certain individuals from obtaining firearms licenses.

The sweeping new measure, effective immediately, is the first of its kind in the country. It most notably allows Massachusetts law enforcement officials the ability to withhold a firearm identification (FID) card from a resident who poses a threat to public safety. Before Patrick signed the bill on Wednesday, police chiefs could only prohibit someone from obtaining a license for a handgun, not for a rifle or shotgun. The chiefs will now have 90 days to appear in court to defend their reasoning for the denial of a license to a certain individual.

Part of the law should be if the chief gets overturned more than 3 times he gets his ass fired.

 

[g5000]

You'll say that until it comes to your state.

Isn't that what "states right" is all about?

Then my state will decide whether it wants to deny a suicidal whackadoo the ability to get a gun. Okay. No problem.

Again, will the state then provide 24/7 protection to said person denied their rights?

If a thief is locked up in prison, is the state going to provide 24/7 liberty to said person denied their rights? Does that question help you understand how stupid you sound?


The state is providing me protection from the suicidal whackadoo, just as it provides me protection from thieves.

 

[nodoginnafight]

As long as this kind of thing stays on the state level, no problem.

You'll say that until it comes to your state.

Isn't that what "states rights" is all about? A state denying a suicidal whackadoo the ability to get a gun is not a violation of the Second Amendment. So it is win/win as long as this stays on the state level.

States don't have the right to deny Constitutional rights.

 

[Yurt]

90 days seems like a due process violation...

 

[g5000]

You'll say that until it comes to your state.

Isn't that what "states rights" is all about? A state denying a suicidal whackadoo the ability to get a gun is not a violation of the Second Amendment. So it is win/win as long as this stays on the state level.

States don't have the right to deny Constitutional rights.

They sure as shit do! It's called "due process".

When a thief is caught, their Constitutional rights are removed by due process. When a suicidal whackadoo can't get a gun, it is achieved through due process.

 

[martybegan]

Isn't that what "states right" is all about?

Then my state will decide whether it wants to deny a suicidal whackadoo the ability to get a gun. Okay. No problem.

Again, will the state then provide 24/7 protection to said person denied their rights?

If a thief is locked up in prison, is the state going to provide 24/7 liberty to said person denied their rights? Does that question help you understand how stupid you sound?


The state is providing me protection from the suicidal whackadoo, just as it provides me protection from thieves.

The State is denying a person the exercise of a right. What stops some police chief from denying everyone, and having some sympathetic judge rubber stamp it?

And a person "locked up in prison" has to be arraigned, and indicted, and those have to happen alot fucking faster than 90 days.

This law will be found to be unconstitutional, but it will take years to go through the courts.

How about we give police chiefs the right to muzzle people for 90 days, "just in case" they may yell FIRE in a crowded theater?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Isn't that what "states rights" is all about? A state denying a suicidal whackadoo the ability to get a gun is not a violation of the Second Amendment. So it is win/win as long as this stays on the state level.

States don't have the right to deny Constitutional rights.

They sure as shit do! It's called "due process".

When a thief is caught, their Constitutional rights are removed by due process. When a suicidal whackadoo can't get a gun, it is achieved through due process.

Well yes, with due process.

Gotta see a lot more of this one and what criteria the chief can use to deny because I can't say for sure, but on the surface it looks like this law could be over-turned fairly quickly.

 

[martybegan]

Isn't that what "states rights" is all about? A state denying a suicidal whackadoo the ability to get a gun is not a violation of the Second Amendment. So it is win/win as long as this stays on the state level.

States don't have the right to deny Constitutional rights.

They sure as shit do! It's called "due process".

When a thief is caught, their Constitutional rights are removed by due process. When a suicidal whackadoo can't get a gun, it is achieved through due process.

A police chief arbitrarily deciding to deny a person a right, and said person not having any recourse for 90 FUCKING DAYS is not due process. A person upon arrest has to be arraigned within a few days.

You are giving police the power to remove someone's rights for 3 whole months. Don't you see the problem with this?

 

[Yurt]

States don't have the right to deny Constitutional rights.

They sure as shit do! It's called "due process".

When a thief is caught, their Constitutional rights are removed by due process. When a suicidal whackadoo can't get a gun, it is achieved through due process.

A police chief arbitrarily deciding to deny a person a right, and said person not having any recourse for 90 FUCKING DAYS is not due process. A person upon arrest has to be arraigned within a few days.

You are giving police the power to remove someone's rights for 3 whole months. Don't you see the problem with this?

this

90 days is ridiculous and i can't believe no one has fought this before.

 

[kidrocks]

You'll say that until it comes to your state.

Isn't that what "states rights" is all about? A state denying a suicidal whackadoo the ability to get a gun is not a violation of the Second Amendment. So it is win/win as long as this stays on the state level.

States don't have the right to deny Constitutional rights.

They sure do... it's called States Rights.