Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Rustic]

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.

Yep. And that’s why we have low gun crime.

Funny thing is, once you go thru the process , Mass carry gun laws are pretty liberal .

You keep on believing that… LOL quit falling down the well

 

[Timmy]

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.

Yep. And that’s why we have low gun crime.

Funny thing is, once you go thru the process , Mass carry gun laws are pretty liberal .

You keep on believing that… LOL quit falling down the well

You can open carry in Mass . It’s a stupid thing to do, but you can .

 

[Rustic]

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.

Yep. And that’s why we have low gun crime.

Funny thing is, once you go thru the process , Mass carry gun laws are pretty liberal .

Thank you! I'm all for responsible and sane people having the right to own and carry. Go Massachusetts!

Yeah, on your terms. Other people want nothing to do with your terms

 

[Rustic]

Feel free to argue that cars should be more heavily restricted given that more people die from them.

Are you unaware of speed limits and abundant traffic laws to license and use a motor vehicle on our public roads and highways - including insurance requirements?

Are you unaware that driving a car is a privilege and not a right, we have a right to own a gun, it is a privilege to drive a car. Of course the driving laws should be stricter.

You have a right to own a musket.

yes, and nearly every firearm invented since the 2nd was written.

(and even those, if you want to wade through the red tape.)

Are you in a militia?

Read it in the context of the era if you are able... lol

 

[Rustic]

Feel free to argue that cars should be more heavily restricted given that more people die from them.

Are you unaware of speed limits and abundant traffic laws to license and use a motor vehicle on our public roads and highways - including insurance requirements?

Are you unaware that driving a car is a privilege and not a right, we have a right to own a gun, it is a privilege to drive a car. Of course the driving laws should be stricter.

You have a right to vote. Doesn’t stop righties from putting up all these voter ID laws .

It doesn't stop the left for wanting all to pay a tax to own a gun.

Isn't gun safety worth the price?

Too bad you know nothing about firearms…

 

[Rustic]

You have a right to vote. Doesn’t stop righties from putting up all these voter ID laws .

Where is the voting held as a Natural Right guaranteed by the Constitution not to be infringed? Where is voting even mentioned in the Constitution?

You realize there is more to the constitution AFTER the 2nd . Try reading it .

Where does the con mention “natural rights”? What’s “natural” about a firearm?

There is nothing more personal than firearm ownership, stay out of other peoples personal lives. And quit falling down the well

 

[Rustic]

Did Massachusetts violate the 2nd Amendment? If so - how?

Crazy people live in Massachusetts they don’t believe in the Second Amendment

 

[Rustic]

Well, it is according to the obsolete 2nd Amendment. Eventually, a Liberal Supreme Court will clean that mess up.

Is the First Amendment obsolete too, and all the other ones? The 2A is a Natural Right we have as humans. Government can not take that away.

Inalienable rights cannot be ‘taken away’ – they can only be regulated consistent with Constitutional case law.

Consequently, residents of Massachusetts are at liberty to regulate firearms as they see fit – provided those regulations comport with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

And current Massachusetts firearm regulatory measures are perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment, in no manner violating the rights enshrined in the Amendment.

That some might perceive such measures as being ‘bad’ or ‘useless’ doesn’t render them un-Constitutional.

Massachusetts can do what they want, obviously they don’t believe in the Second Amendment.

 

[Rustic]

Hopefully other states will exercise their states' rights and follow Massachusetts' lead.

You don’t understand the constitution, the federal government pretty much just disregards the 10th amendment. But no state should follow another state… States should do their own thing

 

[Lakhota]

Hopefully other states will exercise their states' rights and follow Massachusetts' lead.

 

[Rustic]

Hopefully other states will exercise their states' rights and follow Massachusetts' lead.

Sorry to disappoint most states are going to opposite direction

 

[Pilot1]

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

 

[Lakhota]

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

What is your point? Did Massachusetts violate the 2nd Amendment? If so - how?

 

[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.

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

I put out a loooooong list before and forgot a bunch
for buying a car/driving a car/transferring plates in my very pro-gun state:
you need proof of personal property tax paid

You have to pay a tax on pretty much anything you buy. Even a tennis racket. NEXT!

certificate of title

You get that when you buy the car. NEXT!

Application for title and license form108

Just more title transfer paperwork. NEXT!

odometer disclosure statement

Oh gee, you mean you have to write down a 6-digit number? NEXT!

notarized lien release if applicable

That has to do only with loans and nothing to do with the car. NEXT!

---emissions inspection
---car inspection

OK, I don't mind if they make sure my gun can emit bullets. NEXT!

---proof of insurance
---written driver's test
---practical driver's test
---eye exam

Probably the only notable items on your list.

birth certificate
SSN
residential address

You're born with those!

work history
am I forgetting anything???

Work history? For what? That's usually only for loans, which you don't need to buy a car.

So really the only notable items are insurance and a few basic tests any moron can pass. I'm willing to live with those if they're required for open carrying a gun on public property. Insurance will be far cheaper since guns are used less often to kill/injure than cars. Seriously, how many people do you know that can't drive because they could pass those tests? I know of none at all except kids who haven't passed it yet because of age restrictions. I literally do not know of a single person who cannot drive because he couldn't pass the test. I also see 0 people open carrying assault rifles in the street. Literally never saw one.

 

[bgrouse]

Feel free to argue that cars should be more heavily restricted given that more people die from them.

Are you unaware of speed limits and abundant traffic laws to license and use a motor vehicle on our public roads and highways - including insurance requirements?

Are you unaware that driving a car is a privilege and not a right, we have a right to own a gun, it is a privilege to drive a car. Of course the driving laws should be stricter.

You have a right to own a musket.

yes, and nearly every firearm invented since the 2nd was written.

(and even those, if you want to wade through the red tape.)

Are you in a militia?

You don't have to be you dumb clown! It's the right of the people, not of the militia!

The words are in that particular order for a reason. You can't just reorder the words any way you like you fuckhead!

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

So much for conservatives' advocacy of "states' rights."

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If its not mentioned in the Constitution then it falls to the laws of the state. Guess what the 2nd Amendment covers ?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So much for conservatives' advocacy of "states' rights."

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If its not mentioned in the Constitution then it falls to the laws of the state. Guess what the 2nd Amendment covers ?

That's based on an incomplete reading of the Tenth Amendment. Here's the whole thing…

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.​

Does the Second Amendment speak of the right of the state to keep and bear arms? To whom does this right belong?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.​

 

[Dana7360]

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.

I would also require insurance so that any innocent person who is hurt by that gun isn't forced to pay the extremely expensive medical bills themselves.

People should be able to pay for all the damage they do to innocent people with their gun. That means insurance.

Innocent people aren't the ones who should pay the bills caused by someone else's gun.

 

[Dana7360]

So much for conservatives' advocacy of "states' rights."

All the states agreed to the Second Amendment in the Constitution when they agreed to become states. This is not a state's rights issue. Any law a state passes violates the Second Amendment. This is one of the few rights guaranteed by the Constitution not to be taken away.

It doesn't violate the constitution. All it does is follow existing law and the constitution.

Learn about the Commerce Clause. It gives the government the right to regulate interstate and international commerce. Buying and selling a weapon is commerce. Since that weapon wasn't made in just one state, the parts came from different places then those weapons are sent to every sate in the nation. In some cases they're made in other nations. Which is international and interstate commerce. It's already ruled case law.

No one is confiscating guns. All they're doing is putting regulations on being able to buy one which is 100% constitutional.

Do you really want a crazy person to be able to just buy a gun to go on a mass murder shooting spree? It's illegal for those with mental problems to buy a gun. How is the government supposed to know if the person has mental problems or not if they don't do a proper investigation?

If you don't have mental problems or are a domestic abuser or a convicted felon or you don't live in Massachusetts, what's your problem? No one is denying you a gun so why are you so concerned that the government can deny a crazy person a gun to use to go on a mass murder shooting spree?

I don't get it. All the gun people say it's not the gun. It's the person. They also say that the people who go on the mass murder sprees are crazy and disturbed but when people take steps to make sure those crazy people don't get a gun, you have a problem and start lying about what's going on.

 

[Dana7360]

Funny. It's hard to be consistent when an idiot is trying to compare apples and onions.

Feel free to argue that cars should be more heavily restricted given that more people die from them.

Are you unaware of speed limits and abundant traffic laws to license and use a motor vehicle on our public roads and highways - including insurance requirements?

Are you unaware that driving a car is a privilege and not a right, we have a right to own a gun, it is a privilege to drive a car. Of course the driving laws should be stricter.

You have a right to own a musket.

Not according to the Constitution but hey you are very bright when it comes to the Constitution.

Please read the Commerce Clause in the Constitution.

Then please tell me what weapon is 100% manufactured and only sold in one state in our nation.

When a person buys a gun that's commerce. Since everything is not 100% made and sold in just one state, the commerce clause applies to just about all business in our nation.

No one is confiscating guns. The supreme court has already ruled weapon sales can be regulated. They also have already ruled it's constitutional to deny people with mental issues, domestic abusers and convicted felons the right to buy a gun.

All that law does is make sure no one with mental issues, domestic abusers and felons can't buy a gun. So all that law is doing is making sure our existing and already ruled constitutional laws are enforced.