Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hence the hypocrisy of the right.
If states cannot violate the Second Amendment rights of citizens to possess firearms for lawful self-defense, then states likewise cannot violate the 14th Amendment right of equal protection of the law by denying same-sex couples access to marriage.
Constitutional case law is valid because it is applied consistently.
Conservatives can't have it both ways.
Whether this law is Constitutional or not would depend on how it is implemented, the criteria used to determine if someone poses a 'public threat,' and if the law manifest an undue burden to exercise the Second Amendment right.
I my opinion, a 'firearm identification card' is un-Constitutional, as it is indeed an unwarranted burden on the right to possess a firearm, and consequently the rest of the new law is un-Constitutional as well.
Show me where the word marriage is in the constitution, the word keep and bear arms is right in the document. The constitution is neutral on the topic, and thus the marriage contract is something for the State Legislatures to figure out.
Show me where the word "guns" is in the Constitution. OK. Arms could be a variety of things. Swords, knives, maces, bow and arrows, you name it, if it is a weapon it could be termed "arms". Which is a shortened version of the word "armament".
But can you show where the COTUS says "guns"?
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.
Ummm ... there are already laws on the books that "prevent certain individuals from obtaining firearms licenses." So, unless this law is going to ban law-abiding citizens protected by the Constitution then it's nothing more than a political maneuver to gain support and admiration from the Communist Party -- I mean the Democrats.
Felons don't have the right to vote, neither do children, neither do foreigners.
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.
Well, the NYPD is not under the control of the Massachusetts Legislature. Are we debating NYC or Mass?
The police chiefs already have the discretion to deny a FID for a handgun purchase. I asked if they are abusing this discretion. All you have to do is verify that they are abusing their discretion and I'm on board with you. If they're not abusing their discretion, if all of their decisions are sound and upheld by courts, for instance, everyone who has been denied has made public threats, has a restraining order against them, has been in a mental hospital, then I'm not seeing the problem with extending the same logic to long guns.
What's the problem in MA? Is it a real problem or a hypothetical problem?
If it's a hypothetical problem, meaning that existing practice isn't objectionable, then that implies that existing practice needs to be scrapped and all restrictions on everyone be lifted.
I don't want a dude who thinks he's Maldor from from planet Gripnos walking around zapping humans who look like Begnoids who he thinks are the eternal enemies of the Gripnos species. If this guy is so far gone, then I could end up on the wrong of a gun held by a delusional man.
But the law makes it a discretionary decision of the CLEO whether someone can exercise a right or not. Don't you see a problem with that?
I do, in fact, see a problem with unchecked discretionary authority. I don't see a problem with judicious use of discretionary authority vested with the Chief of Police who has the burden of proof before a judge.
In the report I linked they made reference to someone who has had the police come out repeatedly to a home but the person is not disqualified from owning a gun. This could be a man who is threatening his wife, someone who has a restraining order but still isn't disqualified. The Chief has to go before a judge and must prove that this applicant is a threat to public safety. Merely suspecting is not good enough. That's a pretty high standard, so I expect that when it's applied the Chief is going to have a good case - he is trying to prevent some great harm that he expects to occur with high likelihood.
The Gun Owners' Association of Massachusetts supports the law. Does that carry any weight with you? They're most invested in the situation, they have the most to lose and they're on board. What do you make of that?
I'm concerned that recent 2nd Amendment successes are going to push pro-gun advocates to the extremes we see with the homosexual lobby - going too far, as in forcing religious people to bow down before them. Having irate husbands killing wives with newly purchased firearms after many visits by the police to the warring household amounts to sacrificing those human lives for a principle which would only affect those who are deemed by a court of law to be a threat to public safety. That's not a trade I'm comfortable with.
As I noted earlier, if the Police Chiefs are abusing this discretionary authority, willy-nilly, then I'm with the nay-sayers, this is bad law. I just haven't seen any evidence that such abuse is actually taking place and the local gun lobby is OK with the law.
So who knows better, the local gun-rights protectors or distant gun-rights protectors?
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?
Hence the hypocrisy of the right.
If states cannot violate the Second Amendment rights of citizens to possess firearms for lawful self-defense, then states likewise cannot violate the 14th Amendment right of equal protection of the law by denying same-sex couples access to marriage.
Constitutional case law is valid because it is applied consistently.
Conservatives can't have it both ways.
Whether this law is Constitutional or not would depend on how it is implemented, the criteria used to determine if someone poses a 'public threat,' and if the law manifest an undue burden to exercise the Second Amendment right.
I my opinion, a 'firearm identification card' is un-Constitutional, as it is indeed an unwarranted burden on the right to possess a firearm, and consequently the rest of the new law is un-Constitutional as well.
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.
Well, the NYPD is not under the control of the Massachusetts Legislature. Are we debating NYC or Mass?
The police chiefs already have the discretion to deny a FID for a handgun purchase. I asked if they are abusing this discretion. All you have to do is verify that they are abusing their discretion and I'm on board with you. If they're not abusing their discretion, if all of their decisions are sound and upheld by courts, for instance, everyone who has been denied has made public threats, has a restraining order against them, has been in a mental hospital, then I'm not seeing the problem with extending the same logic to long guns.
What's the problem in MA? Is it a real problem or a hypothetical problem?
If it's a hypothetical problem, meaning that existing practice isn't objectionable, then that implies that existing practice needs to be scrapped and all restrictions on everyone be lifted.
I don't want a dude who thinks he's Maldor from from planet Gripnos walking around zapping humans who look like Begnoids who he thinks are the eternal enemies of the Gripnos species. If this guy is so far gone, then I could end up on the wrong of a gun held by a delusional man.
This site does not welcome common sense viewpoints. Please take that nonsense elsewhere.
The original house bill contained a clause that would allow local police chiefs to deny FID cards, which are needed to purchase long arms such as rifles and shotguns. While it passed that body on July 9, the measure only made it through the state senate once the proposed increased police powers were removed. Now a group of legislators from both bodies has worked out a compromise that would only allow chiefs to petition a local court to disallow a FID application after showing cause, rather than having the authority to make arbitrary may-issue decisions.
Under the new guidelines, Massachusetts police chiefs who desire to deny or revoke a FID license for a shotgun or rifle would have to petition the court system with a written notice as to the reason for the requested denial. The court, in turn must find that the chief has “reliable, articulable, and credible information” that the applicant “could potentially create a risk to public safety” before granting such a request.
I hate my state. In order to get a handgun permit in Massachusetts you have to get approval from the chief of police! Now they were trying to do the same with rifles, etc. I guess that part of the clause was removed, and now the chiefs of police are angry about it.
Mass lawmakers agree on gun bill over may-issue gun purchase permits (VIDEO)
The original house bill contained a clause that would allow local police chiefs to deny FID cards, which are needed to purchase long arms such as rifles and shotguns. While it passed that body on July 9, the measure only made it through the state senate once the proposed increased police powers were removed. Now a group of legislators from both bodies has worked out a compromise that would only allow chiefs to petition a local court to disallow a FID application after showing cause, rather than having the authority to make arbitrary may-issue decisions.
Under the new guidelines, Massachusetts police chiefs who desire to deny or revoke a FID license for a shotgun or rifle would have to petition the court system with a written notice as to the reason for the requested denial. The court, in turn must find that the chief has reliable, articulable, and credible information that the applicant could potentially create a risk to public safety before granting such a request.
I hate my state. In order to get a handgun permit in Massachusetts you have to get approval from the chief of police! Now they were trying to do the same with rifles, etc. I guess that part of the clause was removed, and now the chiefs of police are angry about it.
Mass lawmakers agree on gun bill over may-issue gun purchase permits (VIDEO)
The original house bill contained a clause that would allow local police chiefs to deny FID cards, which are needed to purchase long arms such as rifles and shotguns. While it passed that body on July 9, the measure only made it through the state senate once the proposed increased police powers were removed. Now a group of legislators from both bodies has worked out a compromise that would only allow chiefs to petition a local court to disallow a FID application after showing cause, rather than having the authority to make arbitrary may-issue decisions.
Under the new guidelines, Massachusetts police chiefs who desire to deny or revoke a FID license for a shotgun or rifle would have to petition the court system with a written notice as to the reason for the requested denial. The court, in turn must find that the chief has reliable, articulable, and credible information that the applicant could potentially create a risk to public safety before granting such a request.
Who would ever want to live in a liberal state?
I hate my state. In order to get a handgun permit in Massachusetts you have to get approval from the chief of police! Now they were trying to do the same with rifles, etc. I guess that part of the clause was removed, and now the chiefs of police are angry about it.
Mass lawmakers agree on gun bill over may-issue gun purchase permits (VIDEO)
The original house bill contained a clause that would allow local police chiefs to deny FID cards, which are needed to purchase long arms such as rifles and shotguns. While it passed that body on July 9, the measure only made it through the state senate once the proposed increased police powers were removed. Now a group of legislators from both bodies has worked out a compromise that would only allow chiefs to petition a local court to disallow a FID application after showing cause, rather than having the authority to make arbitrary may-issue decisions.
Under the new guidelines, Massachusetts police chiefs who desire to deny or revoke a FID license for a shotgun or rifle would have to petition the court system with a written notice as to the reason for the requested denial. The court, in turn must find that the chief has reliable, articulable, and credible information that the applicant could potentially create a risk to public safety before granting such a request.
Who would ever want to live in a liberal state?
I hate my state. In order to get a handgun permit in Massachusetts you have to get approval from the chief of police! Now they were trying to do the same with rifles, etc. I guess that part of the clause was removed, and now the chiefs of police are angry about it.
Mass lawmakers agree on gun bill over may-issue gun purchase permits (VIDEO)
Who would ever want to live in a liberal state?
Some of us don't have a choice due to family commitments.
I hate my state. In order to get a handgun permit in Massachusetts you have to get approval from the chief of police! Now they were trying to do the same with rifles, etc. I guess that part of the clause was removed, and now the chiefs of police are angry about it.
Mass lawmakers agree on gun bill over may-issue gun purchase permits (VIDEO)
Who would ever want to live in a liberal state?
Some of us don't have a choice due to family commitments.
Who would ever want to live in a liberal state?
Some of us don't have a choice due to family commitments.
I'd move my entire family. Except the ones that want to stay of course and then there is always phones, emails and occasional visits.
Some of us don't have a choice due to family commitments.
I'd move my entire family. Except the ones that want to stay of course and then there is always phones, emails and occasional visits.
They would never leave, plus I do like living in a place where things are open past 1 AM.
Besides, I shouldn't have to move to exercise a right enshrined in the Constitution.
I'd move my entire family. Except the ones that want to stay of course and then there is always phones, emails and occasional visits.
They would never leave, plus I do like living in a place where things are open past 1 AM.
Besides, I shouldn't have to move to exercise a right enshrined in the Constitution.
Well, at least that clause that I mentioned with the police chiefs being able to deny or approve permits at their own discretion was removed from the bill. That's a good thing. Now they have to have a valid reason for denying a permit. At least some people in MA still care about our constitutional rights.
They would never leave, plus I do like living in a place where things are open past 1 AM.
Besides, I shouldn't have to move to exercise a right enshrined in the Constitution.
Well, at least that clause that I mentioned with the police chiefs being able to deny or approve permits at their own discretion was removed from the bill. That's a good thing. Now they have to have a valid reason for denying a permit. At least some people in MA still care about our constitutional rights.
The problem is they have 90 days before they have to prove it to a judge. Also the term "valid" is hazy without strict requirements, i.e., no felons, no mentally adjudicated people.
Well, at least that clause that I mentioned with the police chiefs being able to deny or approve permits at their own discretion was removed from the bill. That's a good thing. Now they have to have a valid reason for denying a permit. At least some people in MA still care about our constitutional rights.
The problem is they have 90 days before they have to prove it to a judge. Also the term "valid" is hazy without strict requirements, i.e., no felons, no mentally adjudicated people.
True. I'll have to do some digging later and see if I can find anything in relation to that. Because, really, if there are not strict requirements already in place, it is still relatively at the discretion of the chiefs of police of each town/city.
In the town I grew up in, I remember hearing as a child how our chief of police was dead set against handing out handgun permits to pretty much anyone. Nobody could get one (unless you were a "special friend") apparently. Of course, I have no evidence of that and it is all just hearsay, but I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if it was true.
Some of us don't have a choice due to family commitments.
I'd move my entire family. Except the ones that want to stay of course and then there is always phones, emails and occasional visits.
They would never leave, plus I do like living in a place where things are open past 1 AM.
Besides, I shouldn't have to move to exercise a right enshrined in the Constitution.
I'd move my entire family. Except the ones that want to stay of course and then there is always phones, emails and occasional visits.
They would never leave, plus I do like living in a place where things are open past 1 AM.
Besides, I shouldn't have to move to exercise a right enshrined in the Constitution.
I understand, but there's more to living in a blue state than gun rights. As for things being open after 1 am, there are many businesses here that stay open late, some all night long.
They would never leave, plus I do like living in a place where things are open past 1 AM.
Besides, I shouldn't have to move to exercise a right enshrined in the Constitution.
I understand, but there's more to living in a blue state than gun rights. As for things being open after 1 am, there are many businesses here that stay open late, some all night long.
I know things are a LOT cheaper in the south than here in New England! I've also been looking at states with no state income tax. We have a pretty high state income tax here in MA, and the cost of living is through the roof!!! I was looking at rental properties on Craig's List, and I was STUNNED at how much cheaper rents are down south than they are here in MA.
