Re: Democratic Massachusetts legislators pass omnibus firearm restriction bill
26MA firearm owners are figuring out how bad this is going to get. Even bolt actions are going to be on a roster.
My opinion is that Big Money/The Oligarchy wants US disarmed or at least impotent in terms of possessed firearms. They have plans for US that we may want to shoot them for and they ain't havin that. The SCOTUS seems already owned and compromised by the same players that want US disarmed.
Boy, you sure have a lot of wrong answers lately. You have been inserting an attempt at distraction, and you're getting called on it by multiple people, not just me (I'm only the latest one).CDFingers wrote: Mon Jul 29, 2024 1:19 pm Abortion is a red herring only for men. You should be embarrassed for having written that, CT.
CDF
Cut out the insults to people's mental capacities. That's attacking the person, not debating the issue.CDFingers wrote: Mon Jul 29, 2024 3:59 pm It does if a person favors all applicable right for all eligible people. Single issue folks seem to suffer diminished creativity. Vive la difference.
CDF
GOAL and Comm2A.CowboyT wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2024 6:37 pm Is there some sort of an organization in Massachusetts (say, their version of CalGuns or the VCDL) that might be able to challenge this law on Constitutional grounds? The law does seem pretty egregious.
I assume the more effective orgs like FPC, SAF, or GOA will get involved. Even so, just trying to get the semiautomatic ban overturned probably will take so long the makeup of SCOTUS will have been changed and Bruen will have been reversed.highdesert wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2024 8:59 am GOAL is the NRA affiliate in MA, like NYSRPA is the NRA affiliate in NY and CRPA is the NRA affiliate in CA. National organizations like the 2nd Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition might also get involved.
Waiting for the court to change is in my opinion the dems strategy. Ignore Bruen and any other gun ruling they don’t like until they can overturn them. Doesn’t give me much reasons to vote for dems. F’em!DispositionMatrix wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2024 9:36 amI assume the more effective orgs like FPC, SAF, or GOA will get involved. Even so, just trying to get the semiautomatic ban overturned probably will take so long the makeup of SCOTUS will have been changed and Bruen will have been reversed.highdesert wrote: Wed Jul 31, 2024 8:59 am GOAL is the NRA affiliate in MA, like NYSRPA is the NRA affiliate in NY and CRPA is the NRA affiliate in CA. National organizations like the 2nd Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition might also get involved.
2. The Plaintiffs, and the people at large, need the Court’s intervention to protect
their right to keep and bear arms during whatever period it may take for the Commonwealth to
draft new regulations and then approve new courses. As it stands, Defendant has indefinitely
postponed the licensing process that people must go through in order to exercise their rights,
which indefinitely prohibits people from exercising their rights. That, however, is one of the
“policy choices” that is “off the table.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 636 (2008).
Political agenda driven legislation that costs state and local governments millions to defend in court, should carry a penalty for the legislators who sponsored it, voted for it and governors that sign them into law. The CA legislature would never pass such a law, it but it could pass by the initiative process.CowboyT wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2024 12:22 am I'm glad to see Comm2A doing this. I'm glad that they have the resources to do so.
However, it appears to me that every state should follow Florida's example of officials making bad, i. e. un-Constitutional, law being personally financially liable. This resulted in a flurry of bad laws being taken off of several municipal books. It should not take expensive, time-consuming lawsuits to put a stop to un-Constitutional behaviour on the part of our lawmakers.
Never going to happen in MA. People are happy to pay into the bottomless pit of public money for their government to save them from firearms.CowboyT wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2024 12:22 am I'm glad to see Comm2A doing this. I'm glad that they have the resources to do so.
However, it appears to me that every state should follow Florida's example of officials making bad, i. e. un-Constitutional, law being personally financially liable. This resulted in a flurry of bad laws being taken off of several municipal books. It should not take expensive, time-consuming lawsuits to put a stop to un-Constitutional behaviour on the part of our lawmakers.
The new law was approved in July and was set to take effect later this month.
https://www.boston25news.com/news/local ... CR4EG7IDM/Healey's decision to put the law into effect immediately blocks any temporary suspension of the law.
The law was enacted in part as a response to the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision declaring citizens have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
Yes. That would be great.CDFingers wrote: Fri Oct 04, 2024 9:46 am I would like to see California's Mulford Act repealed.
CDF
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest