Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signs sweeping anti-NRA gun bill into law

[The Rabbi]

So I guess we can deny certain classes of people voting rights

Felons don't have the right to vote, neither do children, neither do foreigners.

trial by jury rights, and 4th amendment protections because a police chief has a bad feeling about them. But don't worry, it would only be for 90 days......

I specifically asked if there is abuse going on right now with the existing law. You didn't answer me.

Your rejection of this is all focused on the prospect of hypothetical abuse.

Your solution is absolutism. Am I correct? I don't want to be putting words in your mouth. EVERYONE, every ******* mental case, should have the right to carry a firearm on their person in public. Is that a fair summation of your position?

Felons dont have the right to own guns either. No one is arguing otherwise.
But the law makes it a discretionary decision of the CLEO whether someone can exercise a right or not. Don't you see a problem with that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick rocks!







Gov. Deval Patrick signs sweeping gun bill into law | MSNBC

In a move likely to further raise his profile and popularity within the Democratic Party, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed bipartisan gun-safety legislation Wednesday that will grant police chiefs the authority to prevent certain individuals from obtaining firearms licenses.

The sweeping new measure, effective immediately, is the first of its kind in the country. It most notably allows Massachusetts law enforcement officials the ability to withhold a firearm identification (FID) card from a resident who poses a threat to public safety. Before Patrick signed the bill on Wednesday, police chiefs could only prohibit someone from obtaining a license for a handgun, not for a rifle or shotgun. The chiefs will now have 90 days to appear in court to defend their reasoning for the denial of a license to a certain individual.

I don't understand how conservatives could say that this is a bad thing.

Because, naturally, infringing on someone's right to defend themselves is actually a bad thing, Noomi; regardless of what gun control advocates such as yourself believe.

 

[Rikurzhen]

But the law makes it a discretionary decision of the CLEO whether someone can exercise a right or not. Don't you see a problem with that?

I do, in fact, see a problem with unchecked discretionary authority. I don't see a problem with judicious use of discretionary authority vested with the Chief of Police who has the burden of proof before a judge.

In the report I linked they made reference to someone who has had the police come out repeatedly to a home but the person is not disqualified from owning a gun. This could be a man who is threatening his wife, someone who has a restraining order but still isn't disqualified. The Chief has to go before a judge and must prove that this applicant is a threat to public safety. Merely suspecting is not good enough. That's a pretty high standard, so I expect that when it's applied the Chief is going to have a good case - he is trying to prevent some great harm that he expects to occur with high likelihood.

The Gun Owners' Association of Massachusetts supports the law. Does that carry any weight with you? They're most invested in the situation, they have the most to lose and they're on board. What do you make of that?

I'm concerned that recent 2nd Amendment successes are going to push pro-gun advocates to the extremes we see with the homosexual lobby - going too far, as in forcing religious people to bow down before them. Having irate husbands killing wives with newly purchased firearms after many visits by the police to the warring household amounts to sacrificing those human lives for a principle which would only affect those who are deemed by a court of law to be a threat to public safety. That's not a trade I'm comfortable with.

As I noted earlier, if the Police Chiefs are abusing this discretionary authority, willy-nilly, then I'm with the nay-sayers, this is bad law. I just haven't seen any evidence that such abuse is actually taking place and the local gun lobby is OK with the law.

So who knows better, the local gun-rights protectors or distant gun-rights protectors?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick rocks!







Gov. Deval Patrick signs sweeping gun bill into law | MSNBC

In a move likely to further raise his profile and popularity within the Democratic Party, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed bipartisan gun-safety legislation Wednesday that will grant police chiefs the authority to prevent certain individuals from obtaining firearms licenses.

The sweeping new measure, effective immediately, is the first of its kind in the country. It most notably allows Massachusetts law enforcement officials the ability to withhold a firearm identification (FID) card from a resident who poses a threat to public safety. Before Patrick signed the bill on Wednesday, police chiefs could only prohibit someone from obtaining a license for a handgun, not for a rifle or shotgun. The chiefs will now have 90 days to appear in court to defend their reasoning for the denial of a license to a certain individual.

Leftist

proving they hate freedom and are damn proud of it, everyday.

 

[Ernie S.]

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick rocks!







Gov. Deval Patrick signs sweeping gun bill into law | MSNBC

This is absolutely fair as they get their day in court.

This will hold up under challenge.

Go **** a rusty tire iron, preferably one with Ebola on it.

What did an Ebola infected, rusty tire iron ever do to you?

 

[Ernie S.]

Again, will the state then provide 24/7 protection to said person denied their rights?

If a thief is locked up in prison, is the state going to provide 24/7 liberty to said person denied their rights? Does that question help you understand how stupid you sound?


The state is providing me protection from the suicidal whackadoo, just as it provides me protection from thieves.

do you own a gun ?

My GOD! I hope not!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As long as this kind of thing stays on the state level, no problem.

except the 2nd has been incorporated to the States.

Will the police provide protection to the person denied their rights for 90 days?

Hence the hypocrisy of the right.

If states cannot violate the Second Amendment rights of citizens to possess firearms for lawful self-defense, then states likewise cannot violate the 14th Amendment right of equal protection of the law by denying same-sex couples access to marriage.

Constitutional case law is valid because it is applied consistently.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

Whether this law is Constitutional or not would depend on how it is implemented, the criteria used to determine if someone poses a 'public threat,' and if the law manifest an undue burden to exercise the Second Amendment right.

I my opinion, a 'firearm identification card' is un-Constitutional, as it is indeed an unwarranted burden on the right to possess a firearm, and consequently the rest of the new law is un-Constitutional as well.

 

[hazlnut]

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick rocks!







Gov. Deval Patrick signs sweeping gun bill into law | MSNBC

In a move likely to further raise his profile and popularity within the Democratic Party, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed bipartisan gun-safety legislation Wednesday that will grant police chiefs the authority to prevent certain individuals from obtaining firearms licenses.

The sweeping new measure, effective immediately, is the first of its kind in the country. It most notably allows Massachusetts law enforcement officials the ability to withhold a firearm identification (FID) card from a resident who poses a threat to public safety. Before Patrick signed the bill on Wednesday, police chiefs could only prohibit someone from obtaining a license for a handgun, not for a rifle or shotgun. The chiefs will now have 90 days to appear in court to defend their reasoning for the denial of a license to a certain individual.

I don't understand how conservatives could say that this is a bad thing.

Them don't read so good.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick rocks!







Gov. Deval Patrick signs sweeping gun bill into law | MSNBC

In a move likely to further raise his profile and popularity within the Democratic Party, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed bipartisan gun-safety legislation Wednesday that will grant police chiefs the authority to prevent certain individuals from obtaining firearms licenses.

The sweeping new measure, effective immediately, is the first of its kind in the country. It most notably allows Massachusetts law enforcement officials the ability to withhold a firearm identification (FID) card from a resident who poses a threat to public safety. Before Patrick signed the bill on Wednesday, police chiefs could only prohibit someone from obtaining a license for a handgun, not for a rifle or shotgun. The chiefs will now have 90 days to appear in court to defend their reasoning for the denial of a license to a certain individual.

I don't understand how conservatives could say that this is a bad thing.

You don't let one unelected person decide who gets to exercise their rights.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't see the problems here. The Police Chiefs ALREADY have the ability to withhold a FID for handguns, so what makes the extension to long guns so problematic from a legal perspective?

Here's my POV - the 2nd Amendment is not a national suicide pact. If the goal is to remove all oversight over who can own and carry a weapon and this results in Jared Laughner type slaughters every day of every week, then clampdowns will come, legal reasoning is slippery and a way will be found to justify restrictions and seizures in order to end mass slaughter.

So a quest for absolutism just doesn't seem feasible to me. If we can't have absolutist freedom then we need restrictions. Can a category of "threat to public safety" be abused by police to start restricting guns to people who don't objectively meet the standard of being threats to public safety? Sure it can. Will there be abuse? Not necessarily. In order to avoid potential for abuse is the best strategy here simply to have no standards?

One unelected person should not be able to deny a person his rights based solely on his personal opinion.

 

[martybegan]

As long as this kind of thing stays on the state level, no problem.

except the 2nd has been incorporated to the States.

Will the police provide protection to the person denied their rights for 90 days?

Hence the hypocrisy of the right.

If states cannot violate the Second Amendment rights of citizens to possess firearms for lawful self-defense, then states likewise cannot violate the 14th Amendment right of equal protection of the law by denying same-sex couples access to marriage.

Constitutional case law is valid because it is applied consistently.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

Whether this law is Constitutional or not would depend on how it is implemented, the criteria used to determine if someone poses a 'public threat,' and if the law manifest an undue burden to exercise the Second Amendment right.

I my opinion, a 'firearm identification card' is un-Constitutional, as it is indeed an unwarranted burden on the right to possess a firearm, and consequently the rest of the new law is un-Constitutional as well.

Show me where the word marriage is in the constitution, the word keep and bear arms is right in the document. The constitution is neutral on the topic, and thus the marriage contract is something for the State Legislatures to figure out.

 

[martybegan]

Felons don't have the right to vote, neither do children, neither do foreigners.



I specifically asked if there is abuse going on right now with the existing law. You didn't answer me.

Your rejection of this is all focused on the prospect of hypothetical abuse.

Your solution is absolutism. Am I correct? I don't want to be putting words in your mouth. EVERYONE, every ******* mental case, should have the right to carry a firearm on their person in public. Is that a fair summation of your position?

The NYPD abuses it all the time, they make it as hard as possible to get a gun permit, and for concealed carry you have to have a "reason" or be a retired cop.

This isn't to carry a gun in public,it's to even OWN one.

Finally in those cases above its a finite reason for denial. For voters it's being underage or a felon, and it's ALL people who meet the requirements. For denial of gun rights it's ALL felons and those mentally adjudicated by a court. Here it's some public servant deciding on a whim who can be armed and who can not be, and that's infringement.

Well, the NYPD is not under the control of the Massachusetts Legislature. Are we debating NYC or Mass?

The police chiefs already have the discretion to deny a FID for a handgun purchase. I asked if they are abusing this discretion. All you have to do is verify that they are abusing their discretion and I'm on board with you. If they're not abusing their discretion, if all of their decisions are sound and upheld by courts, for instance, everyone who has been denied has made public threats, has a restraining order against them, has been in a mental hospital, then I'm not seeing the problem with extending the same logic to long guns.

What's the problem in MA? Is it a real problem or a hypothetical problem?

If it's a hypothetical problem, meaning that existing practice isn't objectionable, then that implies that existing practice needs to be scrapped and all restrictions on everyone be lifted.

I don't want a dude who thinks he's Maldor from from planet Gripnos walking around zapping humans who look like Begnoids who he thinks are the eternal enemies of the Gripnos species. If this guy is so far gone, then I could end up on the wrong of a gun held by a delusional man.

A person denied a handgun could still get a shotgun or a long gun if they so chose. So while the law is still infringement, it was soft infringement, like a soft salary cap in sports. This is a "hard cap"

Again, rights can only be removed by due process, and a police chief's whims and a 90 day period are not due process. Also, I would have less issue that if said denied person somehow was injured because of the denial of a weapon, they would have standing to sue the chief, however our government is currently rigged to prevent that. People can pass laws and there are no direct consequences to those who pass them if the laws hurt people.

If you want to prevent the person above from harming people, beef up the laws where you can commit a person, via adjudication. This law is made so you can make it harder for ME to get a gun, just because someone ELSE may be a nutter.

That's like muzzling everyone's mouth with duct tape when in a theater because someone "may" yell FIRE!!!

And again, it doesn't matter if there are exact examples, a law crafted in such a way that it can be abused for 90 ******* days (and how much you want to bet like minded judges will extend that 90 days) is infringement on 2nd amendment rights.

And it doesn't matter if I don't live in that State, bad ideas have a habit of spreading in the NorthEast.

 

[zeke]

except the 2nd has been incorporated to the States.

Will the police provide protection to the person denied their rights for 90 days?

Hence the hypocrisy of the right.

If states cannot violate the Second Amendment rights of citizens to possess firearms for lawful self-defense, then states likewise cannot violate the 14th Amendment right of equal protection of the law by denying same-sex couples access to marriage.

Constitutional case law is valid because it is applied consistently.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

Whether this law is Constitutional or not would depend on how it is implemented, the criteria used to determine if someone poses a 'public threat,' and if the law manifest an undue burden to exercise the Second Amendment right.

I my opinion, a 'firearm identification card' is un-Constitutional, as it is indeed an unwarranted burden on the right to possess a firearm, and consequently the rest of the new law is un-Constitutional as well.

Show me where the word marriage is in the constitution, the word keep and bear arms is right in the document. The constitution is neutral on the topic, and thus the marriage contract is something for the State Legislatures to figure out.

Show me where the word "guns" is in the Constitution. OK. Arms could be a variety of things. Swords, knives, maces, bow and arrows, you name it, if it is a weapon it could be termed "arms". Which is a shortened version of the word "armament".

But can you show where the COTUS says "guns"?

 

[martybegan]

Hence the hypocrisy of the right.

If states cannot violate the Second Amendment rights of citizens to possess firearms for lawful self-defense, then states likewise cannot violate the 14th Amendment right of equal protection of the law by denying same-sex couples access to marriage.

Constitutional case law is valid because it is applied consistently.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

Whether this law is Constitutional or not would depend on how it is implemented, the criteria used to determine if someone poses a 'public threat,' and if the law manifest an undue burden to exercise the Second Amendment right.

I my opinion, a 'firearm identification card' is un-Constitutional, as it is indeed an unwarranted burden on the right to possess a firearm, and consequently the rest of the new law is un-Constitutional as well.

Show me where the word marriage is in the constitution, the word keep and bear arms is right in the document. The constitution is neutral on the topic, and thus the marriage contract is something for the State Legislatures to figure out.

Show me where the word "guns" is in the Constitution. OK. Arms could be a variety of things. Swords, knives, maces, bow and arrows, you name it, if it is a weapon it could be termed "arms". Which is a shortened version of the word "armament".

But can you show where the COTUS says "guns"?

nice try, but arms at the time of the constitution referred to firearms. There is no reference to a federal mandate to regulate marriage, nor is a right to marriage given explicitly in the constitution. Thus the marriage contract falls to State legislatures to determine.

Arms = guns, its that simple.

 

[DriftingSand]

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick rocks!







Gov. Deval Patrick signs sweeping gun bill into law | MSNBC

In a move likely to further raise his profile and popularity within the Democratic Party, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed bipartisan gun-safety legislation Wednesday that will grant police chiefs the authority to prevent certain individuals from obtaining firearms licenses.

The sweeping new measure, effective immediately, is the first of its kind in the country. It most notably allows Massachusetts law enforcement officials the ability to withhold a firearm identification (FID) card from a resident who poses a threat to public safety. Before Patrick signed the bill on Wednesday, police chiefs could only prohibit someone from obtaining a license for a handgun, not for a rifle or shotgun. The chiefs will now have 90 days to appear in court to defend their reasoning for the denial of a license to a certain individual.

Ummm ... there are already laws on the books that "prevent certain individuals from obtaining firearms licenses." So, unless this law is going to ban law-abiding citizens protected by the Constitution then it's nothing more than a political maneuver to gain support and admiration from the Communist Party -- I mean the Democrats.

 

[DriftingSand]

If a thief is locked up in prison, is the state going to provide 24/7 liberty to said person denied their rights? Does that question help you understand how stupid you sound?


The state is providing me protection from the suicidal whackadoo, just as it provides me protection from thieves.

do you own a gun ?

My GOD! I hope not!

Best that Libs NOT own guns. Like giving matches to a 4-year-old.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick rocks!







Gov. Deval Patrick signs sweeping gun bill into law | MSNBC

In a move likely to further raise his profile and popularity within the Democratic Party, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed bipartisan gun-safety legislation Wednesday that will grant police chiefs the authority to prevent certain individuals from obtaining firearms licenses.

The sweeping new measure, effective immediately, is the first of its kind in the country. It most notably allows Massachusetts law enforcement officials the ability to withhold a firearm identification (FID) card from a resident who poses a threat to public safety. Before Patrick signed the bill on Wednesday, police chiefs could only prohibit someone from obtaining a license for a handgun, not for a rifle or shotgun. The chiefs will now have 90 days to appear in court to defend their reasoning for the denial of a license to a certain individual.

More proof that anti-gun nuts are ******* nuts.

 

[PredFan]

"Anti NRA Law"

lol

Just call it what it is:
"Anti Second Amendment Law"

This would be like Republicans naming a law that shuts down Marxist speech as

"Anti-Marxism Law" instead of an "Anti First Amendment Law"

I'm still waiting for the moron who started this thread to explain how this is an Anti-NRA bill. I doubt the idiot will.

 

[Wildman]

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick rocks!







Gov. Deval Patrick signs sweeping gun bill into law | MSNBC

In a move likely to further raise his profile and popularity within the Democratic Party, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick signed bipartisan gun-safety legislation Wednesday that will grant police chiefs the authority to prevent certain individuals from obtaining firearms licenses.

The sweeping new measure, effective immediately, is the first of its kind in the country. It most notably allows Massachusetts law enforcement officials the ability to withhold a firearm identification (FID) card from a resident who poses a threat to public safety. Before Patrick signed the bill on Wednesday, police chiefs could only prohibit someone from obtaining a license for a handgun, not for a rifle or shotgun. The chiefs will now have 90 days to appear in court to defend their reasoning for the denial of a license to a certain individual.

I don't understand how conservatives could say that this is a bad thing.

let's turn the above quote 180, I don't understand how liberdummies could say that this is a good thing.

see how that works ?

 

[Darkwind]

I"m sure that 'wackadoo' is a well defined, scientific definition. So, we now say it is okay to punish an individual for 'possible future crimes' because they are scientifically proven to be wackadoo's.....

The stupidity is increasing exponentially.