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

[boedicca]

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.

I can see how this appeals to Big Government Statists.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick rocks!







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

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 "

Good post. I agree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 now have 90 days to appear in court to defend their reasoning for the denial of a license to a certain individual.

The question that needs asked:

Are these "certain individuals" prohibited by law from owning a firearm, or is the determination to that effect at the discretion of "who poses a threat to public safety" up to the LEO in question?

If the latter, the constitutional issue with the law should be obvious, especially if the court in question has the discretion to make the same determination.

 

[boedicca]

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 now have 90 days to appear in court to defend their reasoning for the denial of a license to a certain individual.

The question that needs asked:

Are these "certain individuals" prohibited by law from owning a firearm, or is the determination to that effect at the discretion of "who poses a threat to public safety" up to the LEO in question?

If the latter, the constitutional issue with the law should be obvious, especially if the court in question has the discretion to make the same determination.

Just imagine Lois Lerner in charge of enforcing this law.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

I don't see the big deal here. Obviously the police chiefs will have to have documentation concerning the individual. If that documentation exists, it should have been in the database used in the background checks.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I have serious 14th Amendment issues with this.
But as a previous poster said (and wisely so) I think it's all going to come down to how narrow and specific the criteria is that the police have to use to deny someone a permit.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Obviously unconstitutional. The Supremes will have a field day with that state. Firearms ID is also unconstitutional if required and denied for reasons other than criminal conviction or other prior court order.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 now have 90 days to appear in court to defend their reasoning for the denial of a license to a certain individual.

The question that needs asked:

Are these "certain individuals" prohibited by law from owning a firearm, or is the determination to that effect at the discretion of "who poses a threat to public safety" up to the LEO in question?

If the latter, the constitutional issue with the law should be obvious, especially if the court in question has the discretion to make the same determination.

Just imagine Lois Lerner in charge of enforcing this law.

Exactly. Absent limits prescribed by legislation, "discretion" is arbitrary; in this case, this is equally applicable to both levels of scrutiny.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Obviously unconstitutional. The Supremes will have a field day with that state. Firearms ID is also unconstitutional if required and denied for reasons other than criminal conviction or other prior court order.

Indeed -- unless prohibited from ownership by law, a state must issue a license.

 

[chikenwing]

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.

No comparing the two,rather stupid as you put it.

Perceived threats compared to proven yep your on it.

 

[The Rabbi]

The law is stupid and unconstitutional. It would be like saying the board of elections could deny someone they deemed suspicious the right to vote, subject to appeal 90 days later. No one would go for that.

But I notice the article makes it a point to say Patrick is raising his profile. I have written here several times that Obama will hand pick Deval Patrick as his successor. The Dems have a winning formula--a clean articulate black man promising free cheese to inner city Negroes. They will not blow that by gambling on an old has-been bytch or a whacko like Warren.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Great make it legal to deny people their rights based on the opinion of some small town doughnut eater.

Yeah good idea

 

[GHook93]

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.

"Massachusetts law enforcement officials the ability to withhold a firearm identification (FID) card from a resident who poses a threat to public safety."

You know another famous socialist that passed this law? HILTER, against the Juden.

You have to consider the slippery slope. The police should not have the authority to withold someones FID card without stated justification. It says they can prevent someone from obtaining a firearm "who possess a threat to public safety."

Well that is a very broad characterization. In effect anyone with a firearm fits into that category. Not a person who is deemed to have a mental illness etc, but a threat to society!


However, I won't worry about this too much, since it's going to get discard on summary judgement on a variety of reasons!

 

[boedicca]

Great make it legal to deny people their rights based on the opinion of some small town doughnut eater.

Yeah good idea

Those who support it think that All Our Doughnuts Are Belong To Them.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Great make it legal to deny people their rights based on the opinion of some small town doughnut eater.

Yeah good idea

Those who support it think that All Our Doughnuts Are Belong To Them.

See, this is why I am embarrassed to be on the same side of an issue with some folks.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

"Anti NRA Law"

lol

Just call it what it is:
"Anti Second Amendment Law"

This would be like Republicans naming a law that shuts down Marxist speech as

"Anti-Marxism Law" instead of an "Anti First Amendment Law"

 

[Redfish]

when a state or city makes it harder to own a gun, the thugs and criminals begin celebrating and planning their next robberies and break-ins. Shitcago is the perfect example of what strict gun laws do to the crime rate.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

Nothing...in fact, this is ALREADY HAPPENING! (Some chiefs simply will not process a CCW permit for anyone.)

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Nothing...in fact, this is ALREADY HAPPENING! (Some chiefs simply will not process a CCW permit for anyone.)

True, though that is a different issue than arbitrarily denying the exercise of the right altogether.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Funny how the OP hasn't been back to defend his "victory".

Likely he didn't understand the nuances involved and is unwilling to risk further embarassment.