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

[whitehall]

It sounds about like the existing law in NY, NJ and the rest of the N.E. I wonder if political affiliation would be a consideration.

 

[blackhawk]

If I lived there I might care.

 

[martybegan]

It sounds about like the existing law in NY, NJ and the rest of the N.E. I wonder if political affiliation would be a consideration.

It's only the big cities usually. Unfortunately they have enough democrat bought votes to screw over the rest of the state.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I don't see the problems here. The Police Chiefs ALREADY have the ability to withhold a FID for handguns, so what makes the extension to long guns so problematic from a legal perspective?

Here's my POV - the 2nd Amendment is not a national suicide pact. If the goal is to remove all oversight over who can own and carry a weapon and this results in Jared Laughner type slaughters every day of every week, then clampdowns will come, legal reasoning is slippery and a way will be found to justify restrictions and seizures in order to end mass slaughter.

So a quest for absolutism just doesn't seem feasible to me. If we can't have absolutist freedom then we need restrictions. Can a category of "threat to public safety" be abused by police to start restricting guns to people who don't objectively meet the standard of being threats to public safety? Sure it can. Will there be abuse? Not necessarily. In order to avoid potential for abuse is the best strategy here simply to have no standards?

 

[martybegan]

I don't see the problems here. The Police Chiefs ALREADY have the ability to withhold a FID for handguns, so what makes the extension to long guns so problematic from a legal perspective?

Here's my POV - the 2nd Amendment is not a national suicide pact. If the goal is to remove all oversight over who can own and carry a weapon and this results in Jared Laughner type slaughters every day of every week, then clampdowns will come, legal reasoning is slippery and a way will be found to justify restrictions and seizures in order to end mass slaughter.

So a quest for absolutism just doesn't seem feasible to me. If we can't have absolutist freedom then we need restrictions. Can a category of "threat to public safety" be abused by police to start restricting guns to people who don't objectively meet the standard of being threats to public safety? Sure it can. Will there be abuse? Not necessarily. In order to avoid potential for abuse is the best strategy here simply to have no standards?

The issue is that the people the state gives the authority to keep arms should not be people that can prevent others from acquiring arms for no other reason then "they feel like it".

If the state is so hung up on denying a person a right, the arraign then in the allotted time. There is also no repercussion to the person denying the right. Again, if they end up being wrong more than three times, they are obviously a poor judge of character and should be fired.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I don't see the problems here. The Police Chiefs ALREADY have the ability to withhold a FID for handguns, so what makes the extension to long guns so problematic from a legal perspective?

Here's my POV - the 2nd Amendment is not a national suicide pact. If the goal is to remove all oversight over who can own and carry a weapon and this results in Jared Laughner type slaughters every day of every week, then clampdowns will come, legal reasoning is slippery and a way will be found to justify restrictions and seizures in order to end mass slaughter.

So a quest for absolutism just doesn't seem feasible to me. If we can't have absolutist freedom then we need restrictions. Can a category of "threat to public safety" be abused by police to start restricting guns to people who don't objectively meet the standard of being threats to public safety? Sure it can. Will there be abuse? Not necessarily. In order to avoid potential for abuse is the best strategy here simply to have no standards?

The issue is that the people the state gives the authority to keep arms should not be people that can prevent others from acquiring arms for no other reason then "they feel like it".

If the state is so hung up on denying a person a right, the arraign then in the allotted time. There is also no repercussion to the person denying the right. Again, if they end up being wrong more than three times, they are obviously a poor judge of character and should be fired.

I admit that I don't follow Massachusetts firearms issues at all, so is the CURRENT law being abused by Police Chiefs? Are they arbitrarily denying FIDs to people just because someone didn't smile on a Monday morning? If there is such abuse of discretionary power then I understand the criticism, but if they're denying people who've been in a mental hospital the ability to purchase a handgun, but can't stop them from buying a long-gun, I'm not seeing the harm.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with some classes of people being denied the right to own/carry a firearm. If you're a documented schizophrenic your mental illness combined with your right to carry a firearm does pose a risk to society. Risk isn't certainty, I get it, you can be a schizophrenic and never commit mass slaughter but society has to weight competing interests and I'm fine with some people not having the ability to be armed.

 

[martybegan]

I don't see the problems here. The Police Chiefs ALREADY have the ability to withhold a FID for handguns, so what makes the extension to long guns so problematic from a legal perspective?

Here's my POV - the 2nd Amendment is not a national suicide pact. If the goal is to remove all oversight over who can own and carry a weapon and this results in Jared Laughner type slaughters every day of every week, then clampdowns will come, legal reasoning is slippery and a way will be found to justify restrictions and seizures in order to end mass slaughter.

So a quest for absolutism just doesn't seem feasible to me. If we can't have absolutist freedom then we need restrictions. Can a category of "threat to public safety" be abused by police to start restricting guns to people who don't objectively meet the standard of being threats to public safety? Sure it can. Will there be abuse? Not necessarily. In order to avoid potential for abuse is the best strategy here simply to have no standards?

The issue is that the people the state gives the authority to keep arms should not be people that can prevent others from acquiring arms for no other reason then "they feel like it".

If the state is so hung up on denying a person a right, the arraign then in the allotted time. There is also no repercussion to the person denying the right. Again, if they end up being wrong more than three times, they are obviously a poor judge of character and should be fired.

I admit that I don't follow Massachusetts firearms issues at all, so is the CURRENT law being abused by Police Chiefs? Are they arbitrarily denying FIDs to people just because someone didn't smile on a Monday morning? If there is such abuse of discretionary power then I understand the criticism, but if they're denying people who've been in a mental hospital the ability to purchase a handgun, but can't stop them from buying a long-gun, I'm not seeing the harm.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with some classes of people being denied the right to own/carry a firearm. If you're a documented schizophrenic your mental illness combined with your right to carry a firearm does pose a risk to society. Risk isn't certainty, I get it, you can be a schizophrenic and never commit mass slaughter but society has to weight competing interests and I'm fine with some people not having the ability to be armed.

So I guess we can deny certain classes of people voting rights, trial by jury rights, and 4th amendment protections because a police chief has a bad feeling about them. But don't worry, it would only be for 90 days......

What can be done to one right, can be done to others. If the police want a disarmed populace, they should disarm themselves first, when not on duty. Lead by example.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

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

What an idiot..

And you call yourself a "rightie."

This has ZERO to do with State's rights and everything to do with being UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

The issue is that the people the state gives the authority to keep arms should not be people that can prevent others from acquiring arms for no other reason then "they feel like it".

If the state is so hung up on denying a person a right, the arraign then in the allotted time. There is also no repercussion to the person denying the right. Again, if they end up being wrong more than three times, they are obviously a poor judge of character and should be fired.

I admit that I don't follow Massachusetts firearms issues at all, so is the CURRENT law being abused by Police Chiefs? Are they arbitrarily denying FIDs to people just because someone didn't smile on a Monday morning? If there is such abuse of discretionary power then I understand the criticism, but if they're denying people who've been in a mental hospital the ability to purchase a handgun, but can't stop them from buying a long-gun, I'm not seeing the harm.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with some classes of people being denied the right to own/carry a firearm. If you're a documented schizophrenic your mental illness combined with your right to carry a firearm does pose a risk to society. Risk isn't certainty, I get it, you can be a schizophrenic and never commit mass slaughter but society has to weight competing interests and I'm fine with some people not having the ability to be armed.

So I guess we can deny certain classes of people voting rights, trial by jury rights, and 4th amendment protections because a police chief has a bad feeling about them. But don't worry, it would only be for 90 days......

What can be done to one right, can be done to others. If the police want a disarmed populace, they should disarm themselves first, when not on duty. Lead by example.

Common sense doesn't apply to the left nor does the rule of law. See the ACA and Illegal Immigration.

 

[The T]

I admit that I don't follow Massachusetts firearms issues at all, so is the CURRENT law being abused by Police Chiefs? Are they arbitrarily denying FIDs to people just because someone didn't smile on a Monday morning? If there is such abuse of discretionary power then I understand the criticism, but if they're denying people who've been in a mental hospital the ability to purchase a handgun, but can't stop them from buying a long-gun, I'm not seeing the harm.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with some classes of people being denied the right to own/carry a firearm. If you're a documented schizophrenic your mental illness combined with your right to carry a firearm does pose a risk to society. Risk isn't certainty, I get it, you can be a schizophrenic and never commit mass slaughter but society has to weight competing interests and I'm fine with some people not having the ability to be armed.

So I guess we can deny certain classes of people voting rights, trial by jury rights, and 4th amendment protections because a police chief has a bad feeling about them. But don't worry, it would only be for 90 days......

What can be done to one right, can be done to others. If the police want a disarmed populace, they should disarm themselves first, when not on duty. Lead by example.

Common sense doesn't apply to the left nor does the rule of law. See the ACA and Illegal Immigration.

Nor does Logic nor anything else. These people are on a plain of insanity that I cringe reading every time they post. Reality doesn't compute for them. They re-invent it.

 

[Rikurzhen]

So I guess we can deny certain classes of people voting rights

Felons don't have the right to vote, neither do children, neither do foreigners.

trial by jury rights, and 4th amendment protections because a police chief has a bad feeling about them. But don't worry, it would only be for 90 days......

I specifically asked if there is abuse going on right now with the existing law. You didn't answer me.

Your rejection of this is all focused on the prospect of hypothetical abuse.

Your solution is absolutism. Am I correct? I don't want to be putting words in your mouth. EVERYONE, every fucking mental case, should have the right to carry a firearm on their person in public. Is that a fair summation of your position?

 

[Rikurzhen]

I admit that I don't follow Massachusetts firearms issues at all, so is the CURRENT law being abused by Police Chiefs? Are they arbitrarily denying FIDs to people just because someone didn't smile on a Monday morning? If there is such abuse of discretionary power then I understand the criticism, but if they're denying people who've been in a mental hospital the ability to purchase a handgun, but can't stop them from buying a long-gun, I'm not seeing the harm.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with some classes of people being denied the right to own/carry a firearm. If you're a documented schizophrenic your mental illness combined with your right to carry a firearm does pose a risk to society. Risk isn't certainty, I get it, you can be a schizophrenic and never commit mass slaughter but society has to weight competing interests and I'm fine with some people not having the ability to be armed.

So I guess we can deny certain classes of people voting rights, trial by jury rights, and 4th amendment protections because a police chief has a bad feeling about them. But don't worry, it would only be for 90 days......

What can be done to one right, can be done to others. If the police want a disarmed populace, they should disarm themselves first, when not on duty. Lead by example.

Common sense doesn't apply to the left nor does the rule of law. See the ACA and Illegal Immigration.

Who are you calling a Leftie? Those are fighting words.

 

[martybegan]

So I guess we can deny certain classes of people voting rights

Felons don't have the right to vote, neither do children, neither do foreigners.

trial by jury rights, and 4th amendment protections because a police chief has a bad feeling about them. But don't worry, it would only be for 90 days......

I specifically asked if there is abuse going on right now with the existing law. You didn't answer me.

Your rejection of this is all focused on the prospect of hypothetical abuse.

Your solution is absolutism. Am I correct? I don't want to be putting words in your mouth. EVERYONE, every fucking mental case, should have the right to carry a firearm on their person in public. Is that a fair summation of your position?

The NYPD abuses it all the time, they make it as hard as possible to get a gun permit, and for concealed carry you have to have a "reason" or be a retired cop.

This isn't to carry a gun in public,it's to even OWN one.

Finally in those cases above its a finite reason for denial. For voters it's being underage or a felon, and it's ALL people who meet the requirements. For denial of gun rights it's ALL felons and those mentally adjudicated by a court. Here it's some public servant deciding on a whim who can be armed and who can not be, and that's infringement.

 

[The T]

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

What an idiot..

And you call yourself a "rightie."

This has ZERO to do with State's rights and everything to do with being UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

G-5000? A "Rightie"? OMG...

 

[The T]

So I guess we can deny certain classes of people voting rights

Felons don't have the right to vote, neither do children, neither do foreigners.

trial by jury rights, and 4th amendment protections because a police chief has a bad feeling about them. But don't worry, it would only be for 90 days......

I specifically asked if there is abuse going on right now with the existing law. You didn't answer me.

Your rejection of this is all focused on the prospect of hypothetical abuse.

Your solution is absolutism. Am I correct? I don't want to be putting words in your mouth. EVERYONE, every fucking mental case, should have the right to carry a firearm on their person in public. Is that a fair summation of your position?

The NYPD abuses it all the time, they make it as hard as possible to get a gun permit, and for concealed carry you have to have a "reason" or be a retired cop.

This isn't to carry a gun in public,it's to even OWN one.

Finally in those cases above its a finite reason for denial. For voters it's being underage or a felon, and it's ALL people who meet the requirements. For denial of gun rights it's ALL felons and those mentally adjudicated by a court. Here it's some public servant deciding on a whim who can be armed and who can not be, and that's infringement.

*

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

So I guess we can deny certain classes of people voting rights, trial by jury rights, and 4th amendment protections because a police chief has a bad feeling about them. But don't worry, it would only be for 90 days......

What can be done to one right, can be done to others. If the police want a disarmed populace, they should disarm themselves first, when not on duty. Lead by example.

Common sense doesn't apply to the left nor does the rule of law. See the ACA and Illegal Immigration.

Who are you calling a Leftie? Those are fighting words.

If the Zombie fits, wear it.. otherwise it has nothing to do with you.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

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

What an idiot..

And you call yourself a "rightie."

This has ZERO to do with State's rights and everything to do with being UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

G-5000? A "Rightie"? OMG...

Yes.. In a thread today he called himself a rightie.. LOL

 

[The T]

So I guess we can deny certain classes of people voting rights, trial by jury rights, and 4th amendment protections because a police chief has a bad feeling about them. But don't worry, it would only be for 90 days......

What can be done to one right, can be done to others. If the police want a disarmed populace, they should disarm themselves first, when not on duty. Lead by example.

Common sense doesn't apply to the left nor does the rule of law. See the ACA and Illegal Immigration.

Who are you calling a Leftie? Those are fighting words.

AND you're going to Do what about it exactly? That's right...WHINE...Get lost, and learn to READ.

 

[The T]

What an idiot..

And you call yourself a "rightie."

This has ZERO to do with State's rights and everything to do with being UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

G-5000? A "Rightie"? OMG...

Yes.. In a thread today he called himself a rightie.. LOL

Missed it...and thus the incredulity..

 

[Rikurzhen]

Common sense doesn't apply to the left nor does the rule of law. See the ACA and Illegal Immigration.

Who are you calling a Leftie? Those are fighting words.

If the Zombie fits, wear it.. otherwise it has nothing to do with you.

Then please take care not to quote me when you start insulting people about being Lefties. Just cut my quote out of it, thank you very much.