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

[Erand7899]

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.

Whether it stays at the state level or not, it will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

And, no that is not what "states rights" is all about. States rights revolves around the fact that states are soverign, and the federal government exists to provide unity to the fifty states.

 

[Stephanie]

alrighty, when is the mass move for a lot of you?

If you need help call your gov. when they are breaking your home

 

[Missourian]

August 6th, 2014

Missouri’s Constitutional Amendment 5 passed yesterday with 62% of the vote and 3712 of 3898 precincts reported. It’s a clear statement of support for the right to keep and bear arms, clarifying that it’s a fundamental right; that it protects ammunition and accessories as well as firearms, and that the state is obligated to protect that right. The amendment could lead to the Show Me State becoming a constitutional carry (no permit or license required to keep or bear arms) state like Vermont and Arizona.

<snip>

Here is the actual constitutional amendment:

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned
; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons (removed). The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction (new).
​

UPDATE: MO Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment Could Lead to Constitutional Carry

 

[Siete]

Romney placed a ban on AK47's in Massachusetts , now Patrick makes it the Daily Double.

 

[g5000]

You guys really don't understand your own state laws. A lot of states take up to 90 days to process a concealed carry application, dipshits.

Nothing unconstitutional about it.

 

[g5000]

Here is Illinois:

A 'shall issue' state. Illinois is now a "shall issue," not a "may issue" state. This means that the Department must issue a license to an applicant who meets the requirements. The issuing entity in a "may issue" state has wider discretion to decide whether to issue a license to an applicant. Within 90 days of receiving a completed application, proper documentation, and fee, the Department "shall issue" a license to any applicant who meets the statutory qualifications.5

The New Illinois Concealed Carry Law | Illinois State Bar Association

 

[g5000]

Massachusetts police have long had the ability to deny a whackadoo a handgun permit. This new law simply extends that ability to long guns.

Nothing unconstitutional to see here. Move along.

 

[Missourian]

The Show-Me State Shows the Way to Safeguard Fundamental Rights

Posted on August 8, 2014


The passage of the amendment makes Missouri the second state to explicitly require strict scrutiny as the standard of review in all cases involving the right to keep and bear arms. In 2012, Louisiana became the first state to do so when voters approved a referred constitutional amendment. Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of review used by U.S. courts when a law burdens constitutionally protected conduct. For a challenged law to survive strict scrutiny, the government must show: (1) the law is justified by a compelling governmental interest, (2) the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, and (3) the law is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

The importance of requiring strict scrutiny in cases that burden the right to arms is exemplified by current gun rights litigation in lower federal courts. The United States Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller did not clearly specify a standard of review for lower courts to use in Second Amendment cases. This has led many lower courts to employ a weak &#8220;balancing&#8221; test, often referred to as &#8220;intermediate scrutiny,&#8221; when evaluating Second Amendment claims. Under this lower standard, a number of gun control laws that burden ordinary, law-abiding citizens have been upheld by lower courts. By requiring strict scrutiny in their constitutional provision, the people of Missouri have ensured that Missouri courts will give gun-control measures the most intensive review available and require the state to meet the highest possible threshold in justifying firearm regulation.

Also notable of the Missouri amendment is the inclusion of firearm &#8220;accessories&#8221; within the scope of the amendment. This provides clear guidance for courts when evaluating certain gun-control measures, such as bans on standard capacity magazines. The Missouri amendment emphasizes the intent of the people to protect all of the necessary parts of a modern, functional firearm.

NRA-ILA | The Show Me State Shows the Way to Safeguard Fundamental Rights

 

[martybegan]

You guys really don't understand your own state laws. A lot of states take up to 90 days to process a concealed carry application, dipshits.

Nothing unconstitutional about it.

This is for ownership of a firearm even in ones home.

and provide reference for "alot of states taking up to 90 days to process a CCW"

 

[martybegan]

Massachusetts police have long had the ability to deny a whackadoo a handgun permit. This new law simply extends that ability to long guns.

Nothing unconstitutional to see here. Move along.

or deny people in general, or deny someone the police chief does not like, or deny someone not the buddy of the police chief.

I swear you assholes almost beg to be ruled over like a bunch of fucking serfs.

Go suck some more government dick.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

This is absolutely fair as they get their day in court.

This will hold up under challenge.

 

[PredFan]

How is this a anti-NRA bill?

How exactly does it restrict, hinder, or penalize the NRA in any way?

The OP is just a butthurt moron.

 

[martybegan]

How is this a anti-NRA bill?

How exactly does it restrict, hinder, or penalize the NRA in any way?

The OP is just a butthurt moron.

It hurts law abiding gun owners, and does nothing to stop someone who really really wants a gun. As usual, gun grabbers go with style over substance.

 

[Missourian]

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.

This is absolutely fair as they get their day in court.

This will hold up under challenge.

I very seriously doubt that this will stand up to a legal challenge.

But, it will mostly depend on the criteria that the chiefs use to determine prohibition.

Are the police going to devote time and resources to initiate door to door interviews of neighbors and a full investigation of every FID applicant?

Or are they going to look in the computer files and say "this guy is Black and was arrested for drugs...no FID for you "

 

[Stephanie]

Are all the left just brainwashed zombies?

like someone said, what the hell does this have to do with NRA?

MORE scary is these zombies VOTE

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Sounds just like Hitler's gun control law.

 

[PredFan]

How is this a anti-NRA bill?

How exactly does it restrict, hinder, or penalize the NRA in any way?

The OP is just a butthurt moron.

It hurts law abiding gun owners, and does nothing to stop someone who really really wants a gun. As usual, gun grabbers go with style over substance.

I agree with you, I just want the idiot OP to explain how it's an anti-NRA bill.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Patrick/Warren 2016

Because lots of other nations never even lasted 240 years. Time to say Goodbye, America

 

[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 do... it's called States Rights.

They sure don't - it's called the 14th Amendment

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Nothing about the "states rights" argument allows a state to violate rights protected under the US constitution.