Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Timmy]

I guess you’d be for gun control laws that background checked juvenile records ?

Hope you washed your hands, cause you pulled that one out of your ass... But I will answer the question... HELL NO!

You brought up the promis program

 

[LOki]

Yeah, I'm sure people like you really care about poor people who can't afford to own a gun. If they can afford to buy a gun - they can surely afford the modest state requirements to legally own it. It falls under states' rights.

I believe in allowing people, poor or rich, to be able to defend themselves, and the constitutional right to own the tools to do so.

When do you apply the same standard to voting?

When does the push for having a permit to take advantage of that right?

Then we can get permits to speech, the press, assembly, etc.

(yes, yes, I know there are some restrictions on those already. but NOT like what Mass is doing to gun owners)

What other rights do you believe we need permits for?

This thread is about GUNS! Why are you trying to divert and hijack this thread? Should I report you?

My reply WAS about guns.

I also pointed out the slippery slope you might have missed.

No, I didn't miss the so-called "slippery slope" that NRA gun nutters are always whining about.

apparently you did.

When you need a permit for one right, what is to stop a state from demanding a permit for ALL rights?

Indeed.

There is no reason to believe that anti-rights activists would limit their anti-rights activism to the 2nd Amendment.

 

[HenryBHough]

It today's Massachusetts King George would be voted Governor For Life.

With today's Massachusetts there would have been no American Revolution and we'd all be bowing and scraping to Queen Elizabeth.

 

[Anathema]

Are you saying police can be power mad and corrupt ? What are you , Black Lives Matter?

Local teapot dictators should be appealed and exposed .

I like the local spin on the law because it can pick up on guys like the Florida shooter who don’t necessarily have a paper trail that shows on background checks .

They can be appealed, but that requires time and money

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Massachusetts. Think about that.

I believe all gun owners should be required to have a permit and undergo the same requirements as outlined in the OP. Anyone not willing to undergo such requirements should not be allowed to have guns. It's a small inconvenience to help make us all more secure from gun violence.

No criminal, or person with criminal intentions, will submit to a background check, submit to any weapons registration, and certainly not obtain any kind of license in order to obtain a firearm.

This is obvious.

What is also obvious, is that all such measures are intentionally designed to be obstacles to gun ownership for self defense and other legal purposes.

There is only one motive in the wish to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.

There is only one kind of person who wishes to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.

The people who wish to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their intentions clear.

You are making your intentions clear.

Who's talking about "disarming"?

No one.

That's just another rightwing lie and red herring fallacy.

 

[Weatherman2020]

NEWTON, Mass. ― A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.

His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.

But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first. That means going through a much longer process and undergoing a lot more scrutiny.

Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.

More: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

I salute Massachusetts for passing commonsense gun laws! Thankfully, we have states like Massachusetts that are moving forward on gun control. Hopefully more will follow their lead.

Oh WOW !!! A 4 hour certificate. You must think that the driver's test you took at 18 STILL makes you a great driver... This is in the same looney tune bin of "common sense" as plastering "No Gun Zone" signs all over town...

Everyone knows people will will go from which end of the gun to point to trained gun owners in 4 hours.

 

[flacaltenn]

NEWTON, Mass. ― A thirtysomething man sought to buy a rifle here last September, and if he had been living in almost any other part of the country, he could have done so easily.

His record was free of arrests, involuntary psychiatric commitments or anything else that might automatically disqualify him from owning firearms under federal law. He could have walked into a gun store, filled out a form and walked out with a weapon in less than an hour.

But he couldn’t do that in Massachusetts because the state requires would-be buyers to get a permit first. That means going through a much longer process and undergoing a lot more scrutiny.

Each applicant must complete a four-hour gun safety course, get character references from two people, and show up at the local police department for fingerprinting and a one-on-one interview with a specially designated officer. Police must also do some work on their own, searching department records for information that wouldn’t show up on the official background check.

More: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

I salute Massachusetts for passing commonsense gun laws! Thankfully, we have states like Massachusetts that are moving forward on gun control. Hopefully more will follow their lead.

Oh WOW !!! A 4 hour certificate. You must think that the driver's test you took at 18 STILL makes you a great driver... This is in the same looney tune bin of "common sense" as plastering "No Gun Zone" signs all over town...

Everyone knows people will will go from which end of the gun to point to trained gun owners in 4 hours.

And that everything they learned at the class in 2010 will be fresh in their minds when they have to defend their store from looters in 2024... What was the rule for braking distance?? I forget... How soon before sundown do I turn on my headlights?

 

[flacaltenn]

I guess you’d be for gun control laws that background checked juvenile records ?

Hope you washed your hands, cause you pulled that one out of your ass... But I will answer the question... HELL NO!

You brought up the promis program

Wouldn't be bad to flag Juvenile FELONY convictions. Particularly if there is more than one. But the Promis program was nothing but LAUNDERING school discipline and violence records to make them LOOK safer than they really are.. Typical bureaucratic screwing of numbers.. Not an honest number comes out of them any more.

And to monkey the demographics of the numbers to show parity for ethnicity and race... So a bunch of leftist admins could BRAG about their "improvement"...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Abortion was ruled as a woman's right under her privacy rights. It says right there in the 4th amendment that women have a right to privacy in her person, houses, papers and effects.

That means she has the privacy right to decided what happens to her person or body. Not the government. And the government can't take that right to privacy of her person away from her without violating the constitution.

If you believe that a man has that right to privacy with his person but not women you're also violating the 14th amendment to a woman's right to equal rights protection under the law.

So if you don't believe a woman has a right to privacy in her person then you are violating the constitution.

The reality of it all is what you think and believe means absolutely nothing to anyone but you. Your beliefs can't constitutionally be forced on the rest of the nation. Our government has a constitutional obligation to protect a woman's 4th amendment privacy rights to choose and a constitutional obligation to prevent people like you from taking that right from women.

Deal with it.

The right of a woman to control her own body, even though it was not enumerated, is an inalienable right, not created by the Constitution. Inalienable rights are not granted by government.

The right to keep and bear arms is also an inalienable right. The 2nd Amendment establishes it as a right, and that (at least) the federal government would not infringe on that right.

They both work the same. Rights are inherent. Inalienable rights are both pre-existent and superseding of all government.

 

[Dana7360]

Abortion was ruled as a woman's right under her privacy rights. It says right there in the 4th amendment that women have a right to privacy in her person, houses, papers and effects.

That means she has the privacy right to decided what happens to her person or body. Not the government. And the government can't take that right to privacy of her person away from her without violating the constitution.

If you believe that a man has that right to privacy with his person but not women you're also violating the 14th amendment to a woman's right to equal rights protection under the law.

So if you don't believe a woman has a right to privacy in her person then you are violating the constitution.

The reality of it all is what you think and believe means absolutely nothing to anyone but you. Your beliefs can't constitutionally be forced on the rest of the nation. Our government has a constitutional obligation to protect a woman's 4th amendment privacy rights to choose and a constitutional obligation to prevent people like you from taking that right from women.

Deal with it.

The right of a woman to control her own body, even though it was not enumerated, is an inalienable right, not created by the Constitution. Inalienable rights are not granted by government.

The right to keep and bear arms is also an inalienable right. The 2nd Amendment establishes it as a right, and that (at least) the federal government would not infringe on that right.

They both work the same. Rights are inherent. Inalienable rights are both pre-existent and superseding of all government.

Can you please tell me how regulating commerce is a violation of the constitution?

The commerce clause in the constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate and international commerce. So just about everything that's sold in America can be regulated.

The supreme court has ruled that the federal and state government can regulate weapon sales.

The bill that is now law in Massachusetts only regulates the sale of guns. It enforces existing gun laws that constitutionally prohibit mental patients, domestic abusers and convicted felons from buying guns. All that bill does is the proper background check to prevent mental patients, domestic abusers and convicted felons from getting a gun.

Everyone recognized that the background check system in this nation has caverns in them that a mack truck can drive through. All Massachusetts is doing is closing those holes and making sure our existing laws are properly followed.

Why do you want mental patients, domestic abusers and convicted felons to have a weapon? It's illegal for them to have one so you seem to be advocating for people to break the law and the state do nothing to prevent it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Can you please tell me how regulating commerce is a violation of the constitution?

The commerce clause in the constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate and international commerce. So just about everything that's sold in America can be regulated.

That is wrong. If the intent was was ANY commerce, the constitution would say "any" commerce. Instead, it is commerce between the states, rather than within a state. This GROSS misinterpretation of the commerce clause for the purpose of usurping authority for the federal government and away from the states is criminally inappropriate and should have caused another civil war. It still may.

The supreme court has ruled that the federal and state government can regulate weapon sales.

Incorrectly.

The plan meaning of the 2nd Amendment is a reservation of authority to the States or the people, which necessarily prohibits federal legislation infringing on the right. That pretty much means federal gun laws are unconstitutional.

Every Court, even Scalia, has been too afraid to do the right thing.

Either way, the right is inalienable.

 

[bgrouse]

I believe all gun owners should be required to have a permit and undergo the same requirements as outlined in the OP. Anyone not willing to undergo such requirements should not be allowed to have guns. It's a small inconvenience to help make us all more secure from gun violence.

No criminal, or person with criminal intentions, will submit to a background check, submit to any weapons registration, and certainly not obtain any kind of license in order to obtain a firearm.

This is obvious.

What is also obvious, is that all such measures are intentionally designed to be obstacles to gun ownership for self defense and other legal purposes.

There is only one motive in the wish to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.

There is only one kind of person who wishes to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.

The people who wish to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their intentions clear.

You are making your intentions clear.

Who's talking about "disarming"?

aren't they?

Can't afford the permit?

Can't pass the restrictive background check, for one reason or another.

(if you can pass the background check, do you still pass the Taxawhosits permit check?)

Is the permit retroactive?

if I, in a moment of insanity, move from NH to Mass, do I need permits to own firearms I've owned or years/decades?

Or will they take them from me if I dont' have the appropriate paperwork?

(is there a possibility of being sent to a reeducation camp, or just the standard Concentration camp?)

Yeah, I'm sure people like you really care about poor people who can't afford to own a gun. If they can afford to buy a gun - they can surely afford the modest state requirements to legally own it. It falls under states' rights.

It's "may issue" in some states. Meaning the government can just say "no" if they feel like it. That's about as much freedom as in a Nazi concentration camp, where you can do anything provided the government tells you that you can.

 

[Dana7360]

Can you please tell me how regulating commerce is a violation of the constitution?

The commerce clause in the constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate interstate and international commerce. So just about everything that's sold in America can be regulated.

That is wrong. If the intent was was ANY commerce, the constitution would say "any" commerce. Instead, it is commerce between the states, rather than within a state. This GROSS misinterpretation of the commerce clause for the purpose of usurping authority for the federal government and away from the states is criminally inappropriate and should have caused another civil war. It still may.

The supreme court has ruled that the federal and state government can regulate weapon sales.

Incorrectly.

The plan meaning of the 2nd Amendment is a reservation of authority to the States or the people, which necessarily prohibits federal legislation infringing on the right. That pretty much means federal gun laws are unconstitutional.

Every Court, even Scalia, has been too afraid to do the right thing.

Either way, the right is inalienable.

The Commerce Clause says interstate and international.

The supreme court has ruled that since just about everything in America comes from somewhere else in part or completely, that's interstate commerce.

It came in a ruling on a woman in California who was making marijuana brownies for AIDS patients. She wasn't selling them the brownies, she was giving them away.

Yet the bush boy's justice department prosecuted her using the Commerce Clause. Stating that the ingredients for those brownies came from different states thus it's interstate commerce and can be regulated by the government.

She went to prison.

So the supreme court has ruled that just about everything in our nation that is sold, can be regulated since everything here comes from in part or completely from somewhere outside the state it was sold.

On top of that, the supreme court has ruled that states and federal government can constitutionally regulate weapons sales.

If they couldn't it wouldn't be illegal to sell a gun to a mental patient, a domestic abuser or a convicted felon. The government would never have been able to ban completely automatic machine guns like the tommy gun back in the 1930s and couldn't have banned semi automatic weapons in the 90s for a decade. None of the existing regulations on weapons would exist without the the right for state and federal governments to regulate commerce.

No one is saying that people don't have the right to own a gun. However only gun people incorrectly say that the government has no right to regulate guns.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Again, the Second Amendment is NOT a state's rights issue.

Then neither is the 14th Amendment with regard to privacy rights and marriage.

If the states don't have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit, then they likewise don't have the right to compel a woman to give birth against her will or deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any language that even hints at any “right” to kill an unborn child in cold blood.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any language that even hints at the “right” to force society to treat a sick, immoral homosexual mockery of a marriage as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage.

However, there is very clear language in the Constitution which establishes that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, and which explicitly forbids government from infringing this right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

State laws seeking to ban abortion or deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are unconstitutional because they violate the 14th Amendment.

Nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment addresses either of these.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not support the right to kill any innocent human being in cold blood.

And nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment supports treating a homosexual mockery of a marriage as being comparable to a genuine marriage.

You're just making solid digestive waste up.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The 2nd Amendment tells the federal government that it cannot infringe on the right. Some could argue that the people have the right, and not states, and therefore, no regulation is legal, but forget that for now.

No need to argue it. The Second Amendment explicitly states it. It is the “…right of the people…”, not of the states; and it …shall not be infringed.” It couldn't have been written any more clearly.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But, regardless of Constitutional law, it is fundamentally wrong for the state to compel a woman to carry and birth an unwanted child. It violates all notions of liberty. I cannot abide the state having that much power and authority. It is WRONG.

It is fundamentally wrong to kill an innocent human being for no better reason than that that person's existence is inconvenient to someone else. Protecting the lives of the innocent from those who would unjustly kill them is one of the most basic and essential duties of government. If it's wrong for government to have the power to do that, then it is difficult to imagine what powers government should be allowed.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No need to argue it. The Second Amendment explicitly states it. It is the “…right of the people…”, not of the states; and it …shall not be infringed.” It couldn't have been written any more clearly.

What I meant was that some would argue that it doesn't specifically reserve power to the States (and clearly does not give power to Congress) to regulate firearms, and therefore, no government has the power to regulate firearms.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It is fundamentally wrong to kill an innocent human being for no better reason than that that person's existence is inconvenient to someone else. Protecting the lives of the innocent from those who would unjustly kill them is one of the most basic and essential duties of government. If it's wrong for government to have the power to do that, then it is difficult to imagine what powers government should be allowed.

The other way to look a it is this: Defending one's self from assault and battery with deadly force is justified. If aborting is killing a human being, that human being is assaulting and enslaving the other.

The point is that we should NEVER allow GOVERNMENT to FORCE one human to carry, feed, and give birth to another. One human's involuntary servitude to another should never be forced by government. EVER.

 

[Claudette]

I believe all gun owners should be required to have a permit and undergo the same requirements as outlined in the OP. Anyone not willing to undergo such requirements should not be allowed to have guns. It's a small inconvenience to help make us all more secure from gun violence.

Should we require the same of people wanting to buy a car? Let's see if you're consistent.

Nah. Cars kill more people than guns ever will but you can bet your ass Shittingbull won't be wanting a car ban.

You can't cure fucking stupid.