The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 7, 2014, 11:58 AM   #26
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,085
It is always the ideologue's overreach that does them in. It's what got us Heller, McDonald, and if it holds, Palmer. I almost welcome this degree of stupidity (almost).
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 7, 2014, 02:40 PM   #27
NJgunowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2009
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,086
New Jersey has been "May issuing" rights for decades now and getting away with it in the courts Jim. Just saying.
__________________
Sig 1911 Traditional reverse two tone, Sig p226 .40, Sig 556 Swat patrol, Baby Eagle/jerico steel .45
NJgunowner is offline  
Old August 7, 2014, 02:47 PM   #28
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 4,076
A Boston friend of mine says he has to get a permit for an air rifle. MA is over regulated in my opinion.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old August 7, 2014, 03:16 PM   #29
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
New Jersey's FOID is May Issue?
JimDandy is offline  
Old August 7, 2014, 04:04 PM   #30
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slamfire
A Boston friend of mine says he has to get a permit for an air rifle.
Pardon my ignorance, but doesn't the City of Boston have quite a few firearms regulations that go above and beyond the default MA regulations?

Also, airguns fall outside the definition of "firearm" in many states, thus making them exempt from state firearms preemption statutes. One would think that municipal governments would have better things to do than to over-regulate airguns, but some find excuses to do it anyway. (Again, pardon my ignorance, but I don't know how MA state law treats local airgun regulations.)
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; August 7, 2014 at 04:11 PM. Reason: reword
carguychris is offline  
Old August 7, 2014, 04:04 PM   #31
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 630
JD, as far as I know the FOID card is shall issue, as well as a permit to purchase a handgun. A permit to carry is may issue, and I don't know anyone who has gotten one. It's a well known policy that they're not issued.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old August 7, 2014, 04:13 PM   #32
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,426
Quote:
JD, as far as I know the FOID card is shall issue, as well as a permit to purchase a handgun. A permit to carry is may issue, and I don't know anyone who has gotten one. It's a well known policy that they're not issued.
Well carry has, unfortunately, not quite been established as a fundamental right. We've got a gigantic circuit split to show that. So as bad as New Jersey is, they haven't quite been May Issuing a fundamental right, and certainly not to the degree a May Issue permit to own period would.
JimDandy is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 10:23 AM   #33
dove
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 11, 2013
Posts: 12
GOAL has posted an update on the bill that does a good job summarizing the situation for those who'd like a quicker take without reading up on all the background: http://goal.org/alert-defeat-chapter-180-part2.html

It seems the governor hasn't signed it yet; I was mistaken.
dove is offline  
Old August 8, 2014, 06:57 PM   #34
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,792
The bill number is H.4376 and passed both the house and senate. Here is a overview,
Massachusetts Legislature Breaks New Ground in Gun Control

Posted on August 1, 2014

Last night, in the waning hours of Massachusetts’ legislative session, its House and Senate passed H.4376. Seemingly out of definable categories of persons to deny the right to arms, this bill would make Massachusetts the first state in which an individual’s right to acquire any type of firearm would be subject to the discretion of a government official. The bill went through numerous versions, some better and some worse than H.4376. At one hopeful point, the discretionary provision was removed from the Senate version of the bill. After lobbying by several current and former Massachusetts police chiefs -- the very sorts of officials whose authority over individual rights would be expanded under the bill -- a “compromise” was reached by a committee of the House and Senate. The new provision would allow issuing officials to deny the mandatory license needed to obtain a firearm on any basis of risk they could think of, subject to a court’s determination they had proven their case by a preponderance of evidence (a far lesser standard than required for conviction of a crime).

If there is any question of how some officials view the authority they expect to gain from the bill, Boston Police Commissioner Bill Evans made it clear how a discretionary provision would be used in Boston. As we reported last week, in an interview with Boston Public Radio, Commissioner Evans claimed that “[f]or the most part, nobody in the city needs a shotgun, nobody needs a rifle, . . . I want to have discretion over who’s getting any type of gun because public safety is my main concern and as you know it’s an uphill battle taking as many guns off the street right now without pumping more into the system.”

Just what sort of theories licensing officials will come up with to exercise their discretion under the bill is anybody’s guess. A past version of the bill would have expanded the automatic “prohibited person” categories to cover many new misdemeanors. This was eliminated from the final version of the bill, but the discretionary provision could be used to deny applicants licenses based not just on convictions but on mere arrests or police contacts that never led to judgments by a court. Another provision of H.4376 seems to make clear that the intent of the discretionary provision is to significantly expand who would be prohibited from possessing firearms. That provision would require the collection and reporting of convictions of a number of misdemeanor crimes that are not prohibiting under federal or Massachusetts law. Clearly, somebody thinks this information will be considered relevant in who does and does not “deserve” a firearm.

While H.4376 did contain some beneficial provisions for gun owners, leaving the mere exercise of the right to arms up to the discretion of government officials was a deal-breaking and unprecedented overreach by the legislature. Yet this is far from the bill’s only problem. It also imposes increased penalties for violations of so-called “lost or stolen” and “safe-storage” laws, the creation of new crimes that might be used to prosecute those who use their firearms defensively, and a provision that encourages doctors to intrude on their patients’ privacy to discuss firearm ownership. The bill has not yet been signed into law, but Governor Deval Patrick has already signaled his support. H.4376 is yet another example of the importance of electing representatives who will support the Second Amendment.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08077 seconds with 9 queries