MA ... 1 gun per month bill shot down.

[-..__...]

This was a nail biter for MA firearms owners.

Had it been voted on and passed, it would have limited MA residents to purchasing no more than one firearm every 30 day period.

Another provision of the bill would place even more restrictions on the possession and handling of machine guns (no more public full-auto events).

During the days, weeks and months since this bill was introduced, there were many of us calling and mailing and emailing our representatives to come out against this useless and unconstitional piece of legislation.

It would appear that our voices were heard.

:bounce: :headbang:

Marc Folco's Open Season: Patrick's gun bill met a justified end

At midnight on July 31, the Massachusetts Legislature ended formal sessions for the year and I am happy to announce that the Governor's one-gun-a-month bill, H.4102, which we have followed closely in this column, never came out of the House Ways and Means Committee for a vote.

"With a few legislative items in play until the very end, GOAL (Gun Owners' Action League) was in the State House until the last gavel was dropped at midnight," said GOAL Executive Director Jim Wallace, who attended the final legislative session until the bitter end.

Wallace said one of the greatest challenges in the last days of the session was actually the casino bill as the fight over gambling became an all-consuming subject between the major political leaders. "Towards the end, it was anyone's guess what might become a bargaining chip for that (casino) bill," said Wallace. "And H.4102 certainly was a bill that was in play. That's why it was so important for GOAL to be there until it was all over. When one considers that this bill was a top priority of the Governor, our (GOAL) members and all gun owners should be celebrating a great victory in the defense of our civil rights."

More here...

[valerief]

1. I know I need to buy more than 13 firearms per year to protect myself

from other people with guns.
:crazy:

[X_Digger]

2. I know I need to buy more than 13 books per year to be well educated. n/t

[onehandle]

3. That's ridiculous. How could you use them all at the same time? Unless...

[slackmaster]

7. Your post is also insensitive and small-minded

My gun collection forms an important component of my retirement savings.

Are you an ageist, onehandle?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

109. I don't mind much of collectors

I actually wouldn't mind buying a decommissioned firearm for display in my house if I ever move into one that has a characterful fireplace! A blunderbuss or an American Civil War rifle would look quite good!

It really depends on what the market is like for decommed weapons. Sometimes they can do well, sometimes not. (I'm an avid antique hunter and love the auctions as well).

[oneshooter]

110. Knowing where you are permits for decommissioned rifles are relatively simple to get

But why would anyone, especially a collector, want a decommissioned weapon in the States? The cost is higher and the collectors value is lower. ALL of my firearms are real, and all work, even the Brown Bess muskets.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[FunkyLeprechaun]

111. In the UK

It's better to display a decommed weapon because if it wasn't it'd be in a safe per UK law.

[-..__...]

4. That's not the way it would have worked.

The bill's purpose wasn't meant to limit buyers to 13 12 firearms per year... it's purpose was to limit purchases to 1 firearm per month.

Need I explain the subtle difference between the two and/or why it would adversely impact someone like me or other gun owners?

[valerief]

5. I know I need to buy at least 2 firearms each month to protect myself

from other people with guns.

[-..__...]

Somehow I think you'd only succeed in shooting yourself in the foot.

[Katya Mullethov]

30. Twice

Twice in less than 4 centimeters by my estimate .

[PavePusher]

17. Illogical snark is illogical. n/t

[S_B_Jackson]

25. Perhaps you're just not thinking about it in the right perspective...

a couple of years ago Sig Sauer USA decided they were no longer going to manufacture or sell, several models of firearms - specifically, the P225 9mm, the P228 9mm, and the P245 .45caliber.

I happen to like Sig's firearms, and these models went on my list of "need to get" items for my small collection.
In Feb of 2008, my wife and a friend were engaged in one of their favorite past times, attending estate sales. At one she found for sale a LNIB (like-new-in-box) P225 & P228. She inquired about them and they were being sold for $350 each, or both for $500.00. Knowing I was looking for both, she bought them as Valentines presents for me.

Why should this be viewed as something which should be controlled? My wife had to fill out ATF Form 4473s for both pistols. Unfortunately, when we went shooting that weekend, she shot the P228 and decided "this one's mine".......::SIGH:: so I still had to go out and get one for myself. The P225 was conveyed to me as intended as a gift.

[valerief]

47. Well, heroin is illegal but some people need that, too. Some people need food and shelter,

but they can't get that either.

[cowman]

49. What a dumbass reply

what the fuck does that have to do with the subject?

[S_B_Jackson]

53. Is there a Constitutionally circumscribed right to keep and use Heroin??????

If so, I must have missed that.

My point was that there are instances - and they're quite common - when the purchase of more than one firearm at a time is advantageous. If neither the seller nor purchaser is engaged in criminal conduct, it really shouldn't make any difference.

[valerief]

54. Are you referring to the militia thing or the individual gun owner thing? nt

[S_B_Jackson]

61. Either or both.

As affirmed by the USSC in Heller The Second Amendment circumscribes an INDIVIDUAL right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Regardless, under current US Code, as a male between the ages of 17 and 45, I am a member of the Unorganized Militia.

The firearms I've discussed, are both chambered in 9mm, the current standard chambering for US Armed forces. The Sig P228 is identified in US Military parlance as an M-11.

Now, are you going to show us that Constitutional provision that protects the right to keep and use heroin?

[valerief]

77. Why? Because I mentioned it? I mentioned food, too. India is considering

a constitutional right to food. Why don't we have one?

[slackmaster]

81. We have that already

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[valerief]

84. Then why are so many people hungry? And check this out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/5yearold-boy-accidentally_n_676869.html
If only BOTH twins had guns. But it's an unfair world.

[S_B_Jackson]

87. And this is related to LEGAL firearms ownership how exactly? (n/t)

[valerief]

89. A person buys many guns a month cuz he NEEDs them. It's not like guns will get into the wrong hands

easily and kill someone.

[Glassunion]

91. I'm sorry. I must be a scary person to you.

I bought 6 in one month recently. I must be a mouse fart away from world domination or at the least a massive murder spree. I'm thinking of conquering New Jersey! Who's with me?

Of course 2 of the six that I bought are not concealable and are incredibly ineffective at killing a person.

1 was a collectors piece.

1 I gave to my wife.

Earlier in the month I bought a hunting rifle and a competition rifle. Blood will flow in the streets I say!

[valerief]

92. KO is coming on soon. Michael Moore is on. Don't miss it!

:hi:

PS: I'm not your enemy. Really!

[jazzhound]

106. Hmmm.....Michael Moore. Why is that name familiar?

Oh yeah..........he's the guy that produced the ragingly dishonest "Bowling for Columbine".

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

:puke:

[valerief]

112. Ciao forever!

[slackmaster]

100. Why do so many people have to do without guns?

You seem to be unclear on the distinction between rights and entitlements.

[valerief]

113. I know. It's a shame when upright citizens can't have their own personal army.

What's this world coming to?

[slackmaster]

114. You still aren't getting it

You CAN have your own personal army as long as you don't violate any laws.

You are not ENTITLED to get your own personal army for free.

[valerief]

115. As long as I can buy 10,000 guns each month, I can have my own personal army. nt

[slackmaster]

116. Your reductio ab adsurdum and straw men are not doing a good job of conveying your true opinion

You sound like someone who is flailing impotently at something you can't control. You seem outraged but haven't clearly explained yourself. Your hyperbolic sarcasm isn't impressing anyone, because I believe most of us would have no problem with you buying as many guns as you actually want; which is what the law allows.

Please tell me what you really think about the ruling.

Do you oppose it? If so, WHY?

[valerief]

118. Look, I've explained why I need many guns a month. I've also heard

someone else explain they need many guns a month in case a gun shop has a sale. What wasn't made clear was what was being done with all their guns.

[slackmaster]

119. So, your problem is really that you don't personally have any visibility into what people do...

...with the stuff they buy.

Am I wrong?

[valerief]

120. Aren't you tired of this? Did you know Dan Rostenkowski died?

It's not in the gun forum.

[slackmaster]

124. I'm a little tired of your juvenile nonsense, but you still haven't explained your position

Why is that?

[Euromutt]

126. You haven't heard that at all

I gave an example of a scenario in which one might, in my opinion quite reasonably, want to purchase more than one firearm within a thirty-day period. I can't escape the impression that the reason you have to resort to willfully and mendaciously distorting every point other people make in this thread is because you are incapable of formulating a reasonable argument why someone should not be allowed to purchase two guns within a thirty-day period. Because this law doesn't just prohibit purchasing dozens or hundreds or thousands of firearms in a month, it prohibits buying as few as two.

You are aware, I hope, that a licensed gun dealer (aka Federal Firearms Licensee, or FFL) who sells more than one handgun to a single non-licensee within a five-day period is required to report this to the ATF and the state or local law enforcement agency (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/licensees-conduct-of-business.html#multiple-handgun-sales)? That's federal law, so it applies everywhere in the country.

[oneshooter]

127. Not only does he/she/it not know, he/she/it doesn't care.

The knowledge does not fit their agenda, therefore is ignored.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[S_B_Jackson]

129. If you're going to cite my post, at least be courteous enough to get it straight.....

not a gun shop having a sale, it was an estate sale where the deceased's family was auctioning off the possessions which the family did not wish to keep in the family. They got what they wanted, I got what I needed for my collection.



As far as what is being done with them, the pistol on the left (Sig P228) is my wife's every-day carry pistol. The pistol on the right (Sig P225) is part of my small but growing collection of firearms, and is also my daughter's favorite pistol to shoot when we go to the range. Likely when she moves out, she'll ask for it, and I will gladly give it to her so that she may ensure her own safety with it.

[rrneck]

130. None of your business. nt

[X_Digger]

117. No, it's not "not getting it"- it's intentionally being obtuse.

If the same tired line about 'need' were regurgitated repeatedly about any other civil right, she'd be laughed off DU.

[S_B_Jackson]

86. You raised it as equivalent to the desire to legally purchase firearms....

I would think that you'd be able to defend that characterization if asked.

So, how about it?

[valerief]

90. Risk vs. reward, risk vs. reward. Need outweighs the risk. Because

I WANT it.

Hey, we're on the same page! We both want to buy MORE than one gun a month. Cuz that's what we WANT.

[S_B_Jackson]

93. No risk involved in the LEGAL purchase of one of more firearms.

Your insistence upon NEED begs the question, who gets to determine "NEED"?

I own firearms for multiple reasons, I have a CHL as does my wife for personal protection as well as home defense; we both enjoy target shooting; we both shoot competitively; I hunting; varmint control on my property (feral hogs) and have permission to do the same with adjacent property owners.......the difference in your analogy is that while my ownership of firearms describes LEGAL conduct, protected the US Constitution; the purchase of, possession of, and use of heroin is ILLEGAL and is not so protected. So your analogy? Epic Fail.

[slackmaster]

102. If you honestly believe that purchasing a firearm legally poses a risk,

Then maybe you shouldn't do it.

[Glassunion]

80. Does not matter.

McDonald and Heller both were ruled that the 2nd applies to the individual.

But in today's age what would you concider to be a militia? Back in the day it referred to able bodied males between certain ages. However since then we have had several civil rights laws written.

You cannot discriminate based on age, sex, disability, religion, race, orientation, etc... It is basically everyone.

[Euromutt]

104. Personally, I don't think heroin should be illegal either

The overwhelming bulk of problems associated with drug use are an effect of its illegality. Overdoses occur because there's no legally enforced standard for levels of purity, poisonings occur because unscrupulous distributors cut their product with any number of dangerous chemicals, disease are transmitted by shared needles because users can't get clean ones, prison sentences do more to break up families than the drugs themselves ever could, etc. etc. et-frickin'-cetera.

In places like the Netherlands, where drug use is treated as a health problem instead of a criminal offense, there are long-term heroin addicts who've reached retirement age. And in the 1970s, the BBC made a documentary about a group of heroin users who basically used heroin the way other people use single malt whisky, and without as much ill effect (the documentary was suppressed at the time, and remained so for well over a decade).

[Euromutt]

43. Who said anything about *each* month?

The fact that people object to "one gun a month" laws is not that they prohibit you from buying more than one gun each month, but that they prohibit you from buying more than one gun in any month.

Let's say a local sporting goods chain is going out of business, and they're selling off their remaining stock at a serious discount. As it happens, they have a couple of particular models you've been wanting to get, and here's your chance to snap them up at a price you're not likely to see again any time soon. But you have to get them now; you can't have put the second one on layaway, because thirty days from now, the store won't be there any more.

It doesn't matter that those two would have been the only guns you would have bought all year, the law restricts you to one a month.

But the response to any objection to a "on gun a month" law is never "why would you need to buy more than one gun in any given month?" is it? It's always "why would need to buy 2 guns every month?" or "why would you need to buy 13 or more guns a year?" Aside from the fact that we don't legislate need in this country, those questions don't cover the furthest-reaching effect of the law. This, combined with the fact that it's always "one gun a month" in this type of legislation, and never "twelve guns a year" or "twenty guns a year" goes a long way to convincing me that the object of these bills is to harass legal gun owners, with combating straw purchasing merely serving as a fig leaf.

[valerief]

48. Well, I guess when we NEED a hundred guns at once, we just NEED them. That's all there is to it. nt

[Euromutt]

69. Who said "a hundred guns"?

Because I was talking about two, because that's the smallest number that this legislation would have prohibited purchasing in any thirty-day period. If you don't understand the difference between 100 and 2, I suggest you find a remedial maths course, perhaps at a local preschool.

Are you actually capable of addressing the arguments people make, and willing to acknowledge the full ramifications of this law?

[rbixby]

70. So there is no legitimate NEED to buy more than one gun a month

its more of a 'its a good deal, so I should buy two' sort of thing?

[S_B_Jackson]

73. Since when is "Legitimate NEED" a criteria for a legal activity?

And yes, "I'm getting a hell of a package deal!" seems to be a perfectily legitimate reason for purchasing more than one firearm at a time.

[SteveM]

121. Ah, there's the rub: who determines "legitimate NEED..."

Why, the gun-controllers of course!

[S_B_Jackson]

128. Are those same "gun-controllers" willing to absolutely guarantee the my safety or that of my family?

Cause if not, then I think the best course will be for myself and my spouse to retain that ability for ourselves, and to actively work to ensure that others have the ability to make that same decision for themselves.

[X_Digger]

94. So there is no legitimate NEED to justify the exercise of a civil right..

.. what's your point, again?

[Euromutt]

96. That is one possible scenario

The "going out of business sale" scenario is one I came up with because it's actually sort of occurred to me. That is to say, I was at a sporting goods store during its going out of business sale (a PNW chain called Joe's) to buy some tennis balls for the legs of my father-in-law's walking frame, when I noticed they had a particular model of rifle I'd been thinking of getting (a Remington Model Five Youth bolt-action rifle in .22LR for my nephews and niece to shoot on range trips), at just over half the regular price. Just because I personally can't concoct, at this very moment, a scenario in which you might have a pressing need to buy two or more firearms within a 30-day period doesn't mean it can't be done.

But that's less than relevant, because as has been pointed out at length in this thread already, in a notionally free society you need a more compelling reason to restrict citizens' freedoms than that "there is no legitimate NEED" to do whatever it is you want to prohibit. If there's anything you do as a hobby, the very fact that you do it as a hobby means you don't have a "legitimate NEED" to do it, be it sky-diving, community theater, stamp collecting, mountain climbing, playing a musical instrument, doing triathlons, scrapbooking, owning a car that can exceed the speed limit, the list is endless. But the mere fact that you don't have a "legitimate NEED" to do whatever it is you do is not, by itself, sufficient reason to outlaw that activity. The government has to have a compelling reason to restrict that activity in the interest of public health and safety; sufficiently compelling that it justifies restricting individual liberties.

[oneshooter]

99. When Sportsman's Warehouse went under I bought 3rifles and 2 pistols.

All on the same day, same time. The rifles were Swedish Mausers, and in excellent shape. The pistols were a A-75 9mm and a 22cal M422 S%W. Filled out the forms, showed My Texas CHL (no NICS call needed) paid my money(cash) and carried them out.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rbixby]

131. I guess my point is

aside from 'wanting' to buy lots of firearms at once, there's no real reason why a person would need to be stockpiling guns in such a short amount of time. I think the idea is to prevent people from say, getting mad at a former employer, going out and buying themselves an arsenal while still angry, and shooting up the place, killing lots of people, etc. I don't know how valid that idea really is, but I can understand their reasoning behind it, they'd prefer that you build up your weapons stockpile a little more slowly, so its not just an impulsive decision. A violation of your second amendment rights? I don't think so, you're still allowed to bear arms, you're just not allowed to build your own personal army as quickly as you might like to.

[PavePusher]

132. Can we please have a similar restriction on books?

They're scary and some people buy way too many at one time for any legitimate need.

[oneshooter]

133. Where do I start?

"stockpiling guns" My small collection has about 200pcs, some are use weapons but most are antiques and/or collectibles. I buy and trade on a regular basis to improve or enlarge my collection.

"getting mad at a former employer, going out and buying themselves an arsenal while still angry" If they already have the firearms they don't need to buy another, if they don't have one then one is all they will need. This law does nothing to stop this.


"they'd prefer that you build up your weapons stockpile a little more slowly, so its not just an impulsive decision." THEY would prefer that you had no firearms and no way to LEGALLY obtain one. Gun control isn't about guns, it's about CONTROL.

"you're just not allowed to build your own personal army" I don't know, and have never heard of anyone having their own"personnel army". Please post cites as proof.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[slackmaster]

135. What difference does it make whether an individual owns one or two guns, or fifty?

The most that any person can possibly use at any given moment is two, and few people can do that effectively.

[krispos42]

107. Simple enough... get an FFL and buy in bulk.

You can get'em shipped right to your door as well.




Would you be happy if Oklahoma instituded a strict one-abortion-a-year policy?

[slackmaster]

6. Your post is insensitive, small-minded and shows bigotry toward gun collectors and owners

Not everyone owns guns for self-protection.

Think about it.

[valerief]

15. I know I need to buy at least 2 firearms each to protect myself from

other gun owners and at least 2 each month to mount on my wall and at least 500 each month to sell at gun shows and at least 10,000 each month to black market overseas. Well, we all should have that right, right? Because guns = freedom. Until you die.

[slackmaster]

23. I count five straw man arguments in that brief post.

Congratulations! You win teh Interwebz.

Nothing is more pitiful than a failed reductio ad absurdum.

[proteus_lives]

11. Yeah, people have choices.

You hate that, huh?

[valerief]

16. Where do you get that? I said I need to buy more than 1 gun a month. nt

[slackmaster]

34. Suit yourself

Buy as many guns as you want.

[valerief]

46. Sometimes I NEED to buy 11. nt

[slackmaster]

51. Good. The more the better.

I doubt that anyone on this forum would be even slightly bothered by you buying 11 guns or 111 at a time.

[valerief]

52. That's because I NEED them. I don't know why I need them but I do. nt

[cleanhippie]

55. While your attempt to be sarcastic has failed everytime you posted this nonsense, you

do make a valid point, however unintentional.......

Only YOU can determine what your NEED is. Not the government, not anyone else, only YOU. SO in that respect, you are 100% right.

[valerief]

57. That's right. I NEED a thousand guns every month, because a gun shop could

have a sale. And collecting weapons is important. And there's always my gun-running biz, too, but that doesn't matter. Rights. Need. Now. Me!!!!!

[cleanhippie]

59. Like I said, only YOU can determine your NEED to exercise your rights.

Perhaps you might like to make a coherent argument instead of the hyperbole?

[valerief]

60. My need. My want. My now. That's all. Risk be damned. I have my misinterpreted right! nt

[slackmaster]

62. You must be a deeply conflicted and confused person

How unfortunate for you.

[PavePusher]

64. When you build your strawmen that rapidly....

your quality control suffers greatly.

Look, they're falling apart as they march off to battle...

[cleanhippie]

65. Are you able to propose a coherent argument to support your view?

Seriously.

[oneshooter]

66. I believe that is about as coherent as it gets. n/t

[cleanhippie]

68. I think you are right. How very sad it must be to be so ignorant and uninformed.

[valerief]

76. What view? That I should get as many guns as I want whenever I want and whatever kind I want?

Fox Ews does that. And the Far Right on the web. Among others. You can do a search, if you're really interested.

[cleanhippie]

134. Could you BE more disingenuous ?

If you ever wonder why you are not taken seriously, now you know.

[jazzhound]

58. Your childish snark is duly noted, and proves that

you have absolutely nothing of value to contribute to this conversation.

It also serves as a very obvious white flag of surrender to all who read this thread.

[slackmaster]

63. Everyone read that the first three times you wrote it

Why are you repeating yourself?

Nobody cares what you think you need. That's YOUR business and yours alone.

[valerief]

78. A gun a day keeps the doctor away. Doctors are afraid of guns.

They know what damage they can do to the human body.

[Glassunion]

79. Doctors are afraid of guns?

O'Realy? I must have missed that study. Or are you a spokesperson for the medical community?

[jazzhound]

82. Only doctors who are as willfully ignorant as you are

fear guns. Here's a group that does not:

http://www.dsgl.org/

[slackmaster]

83. Obviously you've never met my cousin, who is a doctor in Kansas

He has almost as many firearms as I do.

[valerief]

85. Ah, Kansas. That's where Dr. Tiller was shot and killed. nt

[Glassunion]

95. And your point?

[slackmaster]

103. Yes, and my cousin IS a doctor.

Doctors are at risk there, apparently.

[Euromutt]

98. My late grandfather in law would have been surprised to hear that claim

He was a medical officer in the Navy during World War II, and then settled down into a general practice in small town in south-western Iowa. He did quite a bit of hunting (definitely deer and waterfowl, perhaps other things too) and reloaded his own ammunition, and he most certainly wasn't afraid of guns.

[SteveM]

122. Well, there are some abortion providers who are armed, no? nt

[Pavulon]

125. My wife treats trauma patients and is an ipsc b shooter.

I am able to buy nice firearms because of her job in e medicine. bet that makes your brain hurt. oh forgot, she has a ccw to..

Most trauma seen is from auto accidents, buckle up your fucking kids and pay attention when you drive.

[Euromutt]

97. So sarcasm aside, you're okay with banning anything nobody supposedly needs?

Nobody needs to collect stamps, play a musical instrument, go hiking in a wildlife preserve, own a car capable of speeds over 80 mph, engage in or watch performing arts, drink alcohol... I could go on all day. Since nobody needs to do any of these things, by your reasoning, there's no reason not to outlaw the lot, yes?

[X_Digger]

50. Did the Obama Administration..

nominate you as the new Secretary of Need?

What other civil rights fall into your purview? What criteria has the administration established for you to determine whether or not a civil right should be available to a particular citizen?

[oneshooter]

101. Or would it be the Czar of need? n/t

[Glassunion]

105. No. She is in Spain.

Ouch...

[Euromutt]

108. "We have a saying in St. Petersburg..."

"What's yours is yours, and what's ours is Czar's!"

(The quote's from a BBC radio skit after it was revealed that, when he died, Sergio Leone had been working on a script for a movie about the Russian Revolution. The radio show speculated it would have been titled A Fistful of Roubles, with Clint Eastwood as Trotsky, Lee van Cleef as Lenin, Eli Wallach as "Smilin' Joe" Stalin and Michael Caine as Nicholas II, who speaks the quoted lines. Much of the action would have taken place at Romanov Gang's favorite hangout, the Winter Palace Saloon.)

[SteveM]

123. Maybe a new Press Secretary! Fit right in! nt

[Remmah2]

44. Firearms can also be objects of art for collectors.

Should an art collector be limited to one painting a month?

There are many fine firearms that sell in the range of $20K plus. Couple of years ago in the Beretta Gallery in NYC I was looking at $70K over/under shotguns and a $110K drillings rifle. The craftsmen and artist who do the fine woodworking and metal engraving are dependent on those sales to support their families. Some engraving/woodwork is done in Italy, some in the US. Multi-nation economies are supported here.

[AndyA]

8. Good God! Really? WTF!

:eyes:

Who the hell could possibly need that many weapons? Ridiculous! :eyes:

[slackmaster]

9. Has it occurred to you that there are reasons to buy firearms other than some AndyA-approved "need"?

:nuke:

[Gidney N Cloyd]

10. What if you run up against Superman? Once you run out of bullets you have to throw the gun at him.

[proteus_lives]

12. Why do you need that man "add object here"?

What is wrong with choice?

[onehandle]

14. It's the 'Mutually Assured Destruction' theory. nt

[cowman]

24. Need?

Well, let me check with the Dept. of Needs, Oh wait, there is no Dept of Needs. How many firearms I buy a month is none of yours or anybodys business.

[cleanhippie]

56. Right! And even MORE rediculous is that someone else should determine

what someone elses NEED is.

I mean, who the hell could possible NEED to keep silent if they are not guilty of anything, right?

[Euromutt]

67. By "that many" you mean... two?

As I've pointed out elsewhere, the objection to "one gun a month" laws is not that they prevent you from buying more than one gun every month, but that they prevent you from buying more than one gun in any month, even if you haven't bought a single gun in the past year.

[DissedByBush]

75. Your monthly allotted exercise of your First Amendment right

You have exceeded the amount of free speech the legislature has deemed "necessary" for you to have this month.

You will have to wait until next month before you can post again.

[proteus_lives]

13. Good ruling!

:thumbsup:

[X_Digger]

18. K&R!

What would people say if it were any other civil right proposed to be so limited?

"You only need to write one letter to the editor a month."

"You only need to read one book a month."

"You only need to go to four church services a month."

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

19. I could live with those ...

but what if we were restricted to only one "unrec" per week? Or one "put on ignore"? This place would explode with righteous (or lefteous) indignation!

Anyway, I don't need (or can't afford) to buy more than one gun per month, if that. But if I were a collector with means, I might buy a matched pair of engraved pistols, just because I want them. That purchase is still legal.

:hi:

[X_Digger]

20. *nod* imagine a woman fleeing an abusive relationship..

.. who wants to keep a shotgun in the house for self defense and gets a carry permit.. oh wait, I forgot, we're talking about Massachusetts. She'll have to make do with a can of pepper spray.. wait, shit, can't buy it mail order in MA, and you have to have a firearms ID card for it.

Let's hope her sheriff's department doesn't take too long processing that request.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

21. That would be a bad situation

but does the passage or rejection of the OP bill have any affect on the situation?

:shrug:

[X_Digger]

22. I can imagine a few scenarios where it would..

e.g. Jill's shotgun was taken by her abusive (now) separated husband Jack. Unfortunately, she has to wait until the first of next month before she can replace it- and she knows Jack is armed.

[S_B_Jackson]

26. while she's waiting on the Sheriff's dept, might I suggest

a big ol' can of Wasp/Hornet spray? It's got to be at least as big of a problem as pepper spray/Mace.......and she's going to have more than one or two "shots".

[Bold Lib]

27. Actually that maybe ruled unjustifiable deadly force.

See, that spray can do permanent damage to the eyes. Such permanent damage is considered "serious (or grievous) bodily damage" and meets most standards for deadly force. That is way you rarely see police with mace anymore, mace has been shown in some cases to cause permanent damage - they've switched to pepper spray.

[S_B_Jackson]

28. Only if the state can prove that her use was intended to cause

serious or grievous bodily damage. Unfortunately, she's still stuck in MA, a duty to retreat state - which places the onus upon her to give ground even when faced with an intruder in her own home. Still, I can't think that a MA jury wouldn't be amenable to a jury nullification argument if properly presented.

[-..__...]

32. There is no "duty to retreat" in MA.

Maybe back in the Dark Days of Dukakis rule, but not any longer...

PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES

TITLE II. PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES

CHAPTER 278. TRIALS AND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE JUDGMENT

Chapter 278: Section 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/278-8a.htm


The following while not necessarily confined to defense in the home, it does give an abused person a justifiable defense case...

PART III. COURTS, JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CIVIL CASES

TITLE II. ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS THEREIN

CHAPTER 233. WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE

WITNESSES

Chapter 233: Section 23F. Admissibility of past physical, sexual or psychological abuse of defendant

Section 23F. In the trial of criminal cases charging the use of force against another where the issue of defense of self or another, defense of duress or coercion, or accidental harm is asserted, a defendant shall be permitted to introduce either or both of the following in establishing the reasonableness of the defendant’s apprehension that death or serious bodily injury was imminent, the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that he had availed himself of all available means to avoid physical combat or the reasonableness of a defendant’s perception of the amount of force necessary to deal with the perceived threat:

(a) evidence that the defendant is or has been the victim of acts of physical, sexual or psychological harm or abuse;

(b) evidence by expert testimony regarding the common pattern in abusive relationships; the nature and effects of physical, sexual or psychological abuse and typical responses thereto, including how those effects relate to the perception of the imminent nature of the threat of death or serious bodily harm; the relevant facts and circumstances which form the basis for such opinion; and evidence whether the defendant displayed characteristics common to victims of abuse.

Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to preclude the introduction of evidence or expert testimony as described in clause (a) or (b) in any civil or criminal action where such evidence or expert testimony is otherwise now admissible.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/233-23f.htm

However... even if the shooting is justified, and the AG's office declines to prosecute, the issuing authority (Police Chief) and any future issuing authorities, can (and many here would), refuse to renew that persons firearms permit (based on "suitability"),
due to our wonderful "may issue"/discretionary licensing system.

If that's not bad enough, good luck getting your firearm returned to you.

[oneshooter]

29. Especially if you happen to have a lit lighter in front of it! n/t

[S_B_Jackson]

88. Well that would tend to shed a little more light on things, wouldn't it? (n/t)

:evilgrin:

[Glassunion]

31. Hmmm. I bought 6 but sold 2, and gave 2 to my wife. Does that count as 2 for me and 2 for her?

Wondrin?

[-..__...]

33. Massachusetts math.

I honestly don't know the answer to that one, but here a licensed individual is only allowed to sell no more than 4 firearms per calender year to another licensed individual.

Any more than that, and the transaction has to go through an FFL.

[Glassunion]

35. It all went through an FFL.

I traded in two, and bought 4.

2 22s.
1 .38.
1 M1 Garand.

Traded in a .380 and a .45.

Basically 2 target pistols, 1 target rifle and a carry revolver with a trade in on 2 pistols.

[oneshooter]

36. I'll trade you another 22 for the M1! n/t

[Glassunion]

37. Nope!!!

[cowman]

38. How about a Valmet 7.62X39?

[Glassunion]

39. Nope!!! My grand kids who are not even born are getting my M1's.

The one I just bought and my grandfather's from WWII. It saw service in France.

[cowman]

40. I didn't think so

but I had to ask. LOL. Lucky grandkids

[Glassunion]

41. I guess I gotta start working on kids first? Better let my wife know. Lol.

[PavePusher]

42. That would be the best place to start... n/t

[oneshooter]

45. I have 5 Garands, they are addictive! n/t

[Glassunion]

71. Yes, yes they are.

To me they are like the Glocks of the rifle world. I have yet to experience a jam even with some after market parts in the one I just bought. The parts just fit together perfectly, and as long as you take care of them, they will always fire no matter what brand of ammo you feed them.

I'm always amazed at how well it recoils. I can shoot it all day. My Remington 700 in the same caliber, not so much. Of course it does weigh almost 10 pounds.

[oneshooter]

72. You should try them prone out to 500-600yds. They will amaze you n/t

[Glassunion]

74. I'm waiting.

We have a 1000yd range about a 2 hour drive from the house. I'm actually more excited to spend the day with the Remington .308 @ 800 to 1000, but the M1s I'm sure will be fun.

The range has Garand and Springfield matches every spring that I am looking to get into as well as the long range comps.