Democratic Massachusetts legislators pass omnibus firearm restriction bill

1
H4885, a new 116-page bill that dropped on 7/17 and passed the next day, is on its way to Healey for signature.
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/H4885

This bill includes a semiautomatic long gun ban.

Summary by subject:
https://www.goal.org/resources/Document ... atter.docx

Summary by section:
https://www.goal.org/resources/Document ... mmary.docx

Jim Wallace of GOAL talked about some of the specifics on 7/20 and how there is no chance the law would be overturned in its entirety.
https://youtu.be/HQcBIwa4MNQ

Re: Democratic Massachusetts legislators pass omnibus firearm restriction bill

3
Yup, this is like a trial balloon that anti-gun states will be looking to see if the courts uphold it or strike it down. This will probably start with a lawsuit at the US District Court in Boston, then go to the 1st Circuit, US Court of Appeals also in Boston and maybe up to SCOTUS.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Democratic Massachusetts legislators pass omnibus firearm restriction bill

5
If the States can ignore a woman's right to privacy and her right to equal protection, it can restrict some types of firearms. You can't really have it both ways. Either the law follows the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, or it's illegitimate. Don't cry to me. I live in California. He he.

CDF
Since it costs a lot to win and even more to lose
you and me bound to spend some time wonderin' which to choose

Re: Democratic Massachusetts legislators pass omnibus firearm restriction bill

6
CDFingers wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 9:57 am If the States can ignore a woman's right to privacy and her right to equal protection, it can restrict some types of firearms. You can't really have it both ways. Either the law follows the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, or it's illegitimate. Don't cry to me. I live in California. He he.

CDF
I agree. Unfortunately, states don't.

Re: Democratic Massachusetts legislators pass omnibus firearm restriction bill

8
Then we must not in any way accept the infringements upon the People's right to bodily autonomy from any quarter.

on edit:

In dozens of states, women cannot access ANY abortion services. Yet in every single state, we can select a gun from dozens of choices.

CDF
Since it costs a lot to win and even more to lose
you and me bound to spend some time wonderin' which to choose

Re: Democratic Massachusetts legislators pass omnibus firearm restriction bill

9
CDFingers wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 9:57 am If the States can ignore a woman's right to privacy and her right to equal protection, it can restrict some types of firearms. You can't really have it both ways. Either the law follows the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, or it's illegitimate. Don't cry to me. I live in California. He he.

CDF
Then I pity you for your choice to continue living in California, where they think a right is somehow a privilege. I see no reason to restrict rights of any sort; that's why they're called rights.

Sikacz is correct; Infringement on one right is not a reason to accept infringement on another. We once had slavery and later Jim Crow in this country; that does not mean we should've abandoned birthright citizenship (Amendment 14). You say you can select a gun from dozens of models. The police, however, are exempt from that--even military members aren't exempt--so that creates a two-class society, which I do not accept the validity of. If your local police precinct can have it, you should likewise be able to have it. The Massachusetts state government is downright scary with what they're trying to do. So is California's and New York's, for that matter.

And for the record, the SCOTUS was nuts to overturn Roe v. Wade. That's like if Brown v. Board were overturned, at least in my book.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Democratic Massachusetts legislators pass omnibus firearm restriction bill

10
What is it with people of a conservative bent always justifying the oppression, subjugation, and dismissal of women? Her right to bodily autonomy is placed second beneath the right for anyone in America to own any weapon for any purpose for whatever reason. That was a Scalia paraphrase.

The only conclusion to draw from this paradoxical snippet of American existence is to say that a gun is a good thing to have and not need. If you need it, then you have it. Wisely store unsupervised guns.

CDF
Since it costs a lot to win and even more to lose
you and me bound to spend some time wonderin' which to choose

Re: Democratic Massachusetts legislators pass omnibus firearm restriction bill

18
CDFingers wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:31 pm What is it with people of a conservative bent always justifying the oppression, subjugation, and dismissal of women? Her right to bodily autonomy is placed second beneath the right for anyone in America to own any weapon for any purpose for whatever reason. That was a Scalia paraphrase.
I could just as easily ask, "What is it with so many White Progressives always justifying the oppression, subjugation, and dismissal of a basic civil right that pretty every much every racial or religious minority needs? Their right to defending their own safety is placed second to "only the police and military need guns" thus leaving them defenseless against White supremacists from both political sides. The list of those wanting to do so is far too long, but Gavin Newscum is just one of many.
CDFingers wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 12:31 pm The only conclusion to draw from this paradoxical snippet of American existence is to say that a gun is a good thing to have and not need. If you need it, then you have it. Wisely store unsupervised guns.

CDF
Now, there, we agree. We who own guns hope that we never, *ever* actually *need* to use them. The only use I want for any of my guns is to go to the range and enjoy the sport of marksmanship. But I'm sure glad I've got 'em, just in case they ever are needed...and may they never be.

As for storing them responsibly, I agree there as well. I store them just as my Dad did his...responsibly. What that is differs for various people due to different situations.
"SF Liberal With A Gun + Free Software Advocate"
http://www.sanfranciscoliberalwithagun.com/
http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/
Image

Re: Democratic Massachusetts legislators pass omnibus firearm restriction bill

19
A woman denied an abortion faces an absolute choice: she can't do it in her state. Yet a California gun owner denied purchase of an off roster gun can still get another gun. So this is absolute denial of a right compared to fewer choices to exercise a right. It should not be a nuanced position--to me it is obvious.

CDF
Since it costs a lot to win and even more to lose
you and me bound to spend some time wonderin' which to choose

Re: Democratic Massachusetts legislators pass omnibus firearm restriction bill

21
Disagree. The woman's Fourth Amendment rights are violated because you can't stop her from getting an abortion if you don't know she's going to get one. The 4A right to be secure in one's person is paramount. If you can't control your own body, then you are a second class citizen. If you can't control your own body your Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection clause also is violated.

This paradox results from centuries of male entitlement. It used to be that males needed by law to be held superior to enslaved people (3/5 Compromise) and to women who could not vote. How is it now? Are men so weak and spineless that we no longer defend the call for equal rights? Well, yeah. We are. We've not even passed the Equal Rights Amendment yet. Freedom is untidy; liberty, less so. We defend liberty then we champion equal rights. We champion freedom by ignoring the bow to male entitlement and assumed privilege. Tough to read, but that's the way it's worked out.

CDF
Since it costs a lot to win and even more to lose
you and me bound to spend some time wonderin' which to choose

Re: Democratic Massachusetts legislators pass omnibus firearm restriction bill

23
I absolutely believe in the right to bodily autonomy for all, that includes transgender men and women. That is also why I can’t support naive BS to disarm people, limit and restrict the second amendment. I will not support playing one right against another or restricting one right because another has been restricted. Bringing up bodily autonomy from the limited frame of abortion is pure BS. Bodily autonomy encompasses a much larger issue and more than women with vaginas of childbearing age. The right to self defense also includes more than just white old men. Both concepts are larger than the above presented perspective. Both are also intertwined and linked. We should not be arguing for the fairness to eliminate either, we should be arguing that both need to be protected. I can’t bring myself to support a party that won’t ensure bodily autonomy to all, including transgender people and I can’t support a party that will take away and limit the tools of self defense making it a privilege. Both issues are larger than presented here, bodily autonomy is more than about a woman’s vagina and the second is more than an old white guy’s gun.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: Democratic Massachusetts legislators pass omnibus firearm restriction bill

25
What bugs me is the false equivalencies. Rights are rights. Some rights, however, are infringed upon much more than are others. So there's this continuum. This makes a need for a triage of sorts: take care of the most severely wounded first, but those who can't be saved are made comfortable and left to die.

The ones who can't be saved are all the rights we thought we had absolutely that have been infringed upon--this, despite the Ninth Amendment allowing for other rights "retained by the People." This includes a woman's right to choose.

To me, the best way to structure things can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment. Everyone is a person. Born or naturalized here makes one a citizen entitled by law to equal protection of that law. I know it seems pretty simple, because it is. But that position does not carve out areas where grifting and fraud can take place. And this is one of the many reasons that democracy is a messy business. I think if we embrace that, we will be more able to chart a future.

CDF
Since it costs a lot to win and even more to lose
you and me bound to spend some time wonderin' which to choose

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests