Would you like to join my mailing list? Just enter your email below to sign up!

Concealed Carry

   Ma. On June 21 there will be over 20 anti gun bills presented by our glorious so-called ‘representatives’. Let me give you a little preview of the communistic agenda they would love to force onto all law abiding gun owners of  Ma., this may look fictitious but let me assure you, it is a real attack on our freedoms. Here are four of the more outlandish, from four honest to God clowns, oops, I mean ‘reps’:

1. Senate Bill 1202 by Senator Cynthia Stone Creem (D-Newton), She wants to make it a crime for already licensed, law abiding gun owners who buy more than one large capacity firearm, (10 rounds or more) in any 30 day period punishable to the tune of $5000 dollars and/or, a two and a half year prison term!! Gee that should curb crime….pedophiles are treated better in this state. News Flash Cindy, CRIMINALS cant legally buy guns, they don’t have a gun license because they are CRIMINALS!!  So who would your foolish bill effect Cindy……? Take a guess. Oh, by the way, The Gun Control Act of 1968 already regulates legal gun ownership, maybe you should read it and concentrate your energy on unlawful ownership, as in criminal.

2. Senate Bill 1234 by Senator James Timilty (D-Walpole), He wants to ban ammo larger than .22 caliber intended for handguns that have a outer jacket weighing more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile. AND he wants to ban ammo made with ANY combination of tungsten alloys (pay attention duck hunters), or made with steel, iron, BRASS,(which takes care of all ammo), bronze, beryllium, copper- (for BB guns and frangible ammo) or depleted uranium for God sakes!   I guess that Dick’s will have to remove its nuclear grade ammo from the shelves… gee. Hey Jimmy boy, Castro is looking for a replacement, why don’t you apply, you would feel right at home there with your agendas.

3. House Bill 665 by State Rep.Timothy J. Toomey (D-Cambridge), This wing-nut wants all of us law abiding concealed carry permit holders to turn in a list of every handgun we own along with a valid certificate of insurance with no less than $250,000 dollars of coverage! I will bet the insurance industry is in bed with this nitwit.  Can you say Heil Hitler!!? Really? He wants gun registration? Toomey must have flunked history, not to mention having no clue about the Constitution, and this jackass made it to where he is? Amazing, what a sad reflection he makes on Cambridge!

4. House Bill 1561 by State Rep. David Paul Linsky (D-Natick), This guy has a two part bill, one part has already been in place forever, (The National Firearms Act of 1934, 77 years old) I guess no one told Linsky, he wants a serial number on each new gun, and wants them on record with the gun maker. The second part of his bill, (which is impossible) is designed to require all gun makers sending their products to Ma. to design semi auto guns that will micro-stamp each shell casing with the make, model, and serial number when they are fired! Can you say Total Semi-Auto Gun Ban? Very Cute, Clever, Cunning, and Evil on Linsky’s part, as are all these bills.

It is always Democrats, (democrat), is that  a cover word?  What they really are, it would seem, is anti American, socialist ‘progressives’ bent on disarming honest America so that they may then ride roughshod over the rest of the hated Constitution. First they need to rid it of the Second Amendment! And to think Ma. was once the ‘cradle of freedom’! That idea is long dead and gone…….

Check this link,  then call your ‘Reps’ to warn them that if they pass this BS they will be creating a very new breed of non compliant criminal, and that they can all pound sand with their pipe dreams of disarmament! They do not, never have, and never will have a mandate from Americans to strip us of our Second Amendment, or right to self defense, yet these morons pretend they do. Who the hell do these empty suits think they are!? Really? I think we know them for what they are. These people do not rate the title ‘Honorable’. The laws they dream up are criminal!

  Now a word from two real Patriots who would have considered these people ‘Tory’s. Tory’s were the enemys from ‘within’ in their day. Today it seems to be democrat’s.

   “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force you are ruined.” –PATRICK HENRY

   “We are right to be alarmed at the first experiment upon our liberties. Americans have the right and advantage of being armed; unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” –JAMES MADISON

Submitted by Mark Shean on 6-19-2011

Committee Members: Senate & House, (D)   (D)  (D)  (D)  (D)  (R)

(D)  (D)  (D)  (D)  (R)  (D)  (D)  (D)  (R)  (D)  (D)

 There are 14 Democrats and only 3 Republicans on this so-called ‘joint’ committee, how does that make you feel about your freedoms being protected? If these ‘servants’ represent you contact them. Remind them who they work for and of the oath they took. Timilty is one of these members, he submitted bill 1234, can you say conflict of interest?

4 Responses to “Anti-Gun Bills to be heard by ‘Joint’ Committee”

  • ED says:

    Unbelievable,welcome to the U.S.S.A.
    NOTE: ED, I sent a copy of this blog to each of the disfunctional so-called reps so that they will know we are onto their schemes. MS

  • Mike B. says:

    Mark, Are you heading up any protests against this crap? or is there a way for people to voice or vote against? What can we do? We can’t allow this kind of crap!
    NOTE: Mike, Just link your friends to this info and zip an email to your so-called reps., I will include the emails of these bills authors on the blog. MS

  • George Sterling says:


    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.

    It is important to note that this law is only available to occupants of dwellings. An occupant is an individual who has some sort of possessory interest in the property in question, such as a tenant or an owner. A dwelling is a place where an individual is temporarily or permanently residing and which is one’s exclusive possession. Generally this means that a dwelling has to be a permanent structure such as an apartment, a home, a summer cottage or, under some circumstances, a hotel or motel room. A dwelling CANNOT be a motor home, a tent, or a boat because these structures are not permanent and stationary.

    If an intruder enters a dwelling and is NOT threatening death or serious bodily injury, the occupants have no right to use deadly force. If you are prosecuted for your use of deadly force in your home, the burden is on you to provide evidence that you acted in self defense. If you CANNOT provide evidence that you acted in self defense, then the Court will not instruct the jury that you have acted in self defense. And you may spend a very long time in prison for defending yourself.

    Massachusetts law takes the position that if you are not within the walls of your home, you MUST make every attempt to escape or avoid all confrontation with an aggressor before your right of self defense arises. The basic difference between self defense inside your home and outside your home is that inside your home, you have no duty to retreat. Outside your home you must retreat if you can do so safely.

    NOTE: It would be no stretch of anyones imagination, (even in MA.,unless of course your an elected official such as these nitwits outlined above) to show that you were in fear of great bodily injury or death if someone were to break into your home while it is occupied. The invader(s), (most likely) are NOT the ‘welcome wagon’ delivering flowers and candy at 2AM, or any other time, it would be foolish to think your family were not in danger in such a setting .Please read ‘Gun Sense’ #28 for Coutroom judgements on self defense. And as always, it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Thank you for sending your input George. MS

  • GMS says:

    Here’s a good quote for you Mark

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria

    NOTE: Great quote, Cesare Beccaria was a famous Itialian lawyer in Jeffersons day who lived in Italy, many people attribute this quote to Jefferson when in fact it was a quote that Jefferson repeated because he admired Beccaria. I wish more people today understood what these men knew way back then, and passed it on to their so-called ‘reps’ of today. Thanks Mike,

Leave a Reply