| Author | Post |
|---|
spy1
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Apr 26th, 2009 05:53 am |
|
Gun Owners Action League of Massachussetts is concerned that this proposed legislation may be back door to confiscation.
http://navlog.org/goal_apr09.pdf
"H.2202, Automatic Weapons Bill or General Gun Ban? Recently GOAL obtained a copy of H.2202 "An Act to Close the Automatic Weapon Loophole" bill. The legislation was filed by Representative Antonio Cabral of New Bedford. The bill appears to have no cosponsors. At first glance one would logically come to the conclusion that the bill has something to do with machineguns. Unfortunately, you would be wrong. It is actually a potential ban on everything other than automatic firearms. The very first section of the bill changes the Commonwealth's definition of "Assault Weapon" by deleting the exemptions that exist for manual action guns. The proposed change also does away with an important exemption that GOAL had put into law in our 2004 reform bill (Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004). The exemption was Appendix A of 18 U.S.C. 922, part of the federal assault weapons ban laws that were set to expire in 2004. The Appendix contained a list of hundreds of guns that could legally never be considered as "assault weapons". Some examples of the guns on the list are Ruger Red Label Shotgun, Perrazi Sporting Classic O/U Shotgun, Browning Citori O/U Shotgun, Remington 870 Youth Model, Ancshutz Match Rifle, Thompson/Center Contender Carbine. Knowing the federal ban was set to expire and the Massachusetts ban was not, GOAL successfully worked to permanently attach Appendix A to the Massachusetts exemptions. H.2202 proposes to do away with that exemption. The next two sections of the bill inserts language into the license to carry law (Chapter 140, Section 131) essentially banning the purchase, renting, leasing, borrowing, possession and carrying of assault weapons. Section four of the bill is more than a little confusing as it deals with club licenses. The language removes an exemption in the law that currently allows the removal of large capacity weapons or large capacity feeding devices from the premises (club) for the
purpose of "hunting in accordance with the provisions of chapter 131." The bill then moves to change the minimum sentencing for possession firearm (handgun), rifle or shotgun form 2 ½ years to "not less than three years." The minimum sentencing for drug and violent crimes in conjunction with gun crimes is increased from three years to a minimum of five years. It also intends to do away with the ability to serve concurrent sentences for certain crimes. The bill clearly has nothing to do with machineguns (automatic weapons), but rather is intended to ban certain semi-automatic guns (assault weapons). Perhaps even more sinister is that by proposing to remove the crucial exemptions in the legal definition of "assault weapon" it is intentionally opening the door to label most any gun an assault weapon and thus potentially banning anything. If this is not the intention, then why remove the exemptions? H.2202 is currently within the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security. We urge our members to contact the Committee members and ask them to oppose this blatant attempt to open the door for banning the possession of guns by lawful citizens."
http://www.alarmandmuster.com/Home.html
Last edited on Sun Apr 26th, 2009 06:00 am by spy1
|
JoeSparky
Centurion Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 05:00 am |
|
So. let me understand this....
Any weapon used to assault another is an ASSAULT WEAPON...
This makes it so much easier! and it saves ink too....
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 27th, 2009 04:07 pm |
|
| What part of 'Shall not be infringed' escapes them? I'm convinced the better part of the MA gene pool was destroyed in the Revolution.
|
Dutch Uncle
Activist Member
| Joined: | Thu May 11th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 1409 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 29th, 2009 03:13 am |
|
This evening I was looking over a website selling OC spray (pepper spray). They mentioned that in Massachusetts, one needed a Firearms Owners ID card to purchase. I lived in MA half a lifetime ago, and recall that getting the card involved fingerprints, a mugshot, a hefty sum, and a 3 mo. wait. The site also said pepper spray could only be purchased through an FFL. (really!) If this doesn't prove that liberalism is a mental disorder, I don't know what does. MA is truly hopeless, and reading the website reminded me why I was so relieved to get out.
|
Current time is 10:18 am | |
|
|
|
