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

Concealed Carry

This is a overview of some of the suggested gun laws that I have had forwarded to me by an anonymous source, I will make notes,(in RED, meaning danger to our freedoms) throughout this with a brief summary at the end.  I will send out two more alerts covering the other pending changes in the days ahead. M.S.

The ‘Honorable’ Speaker Robert DeLeo told the committee that nothing was “off the table” and the committee could look into any proposals that might decrease gun violence, including proposals that might call for additional revenue. MARK’s NOTE: See the “additional revenue”, it boils down to how can the state squeeze more money from the tax payers. They sure like to overwork the term ‘Honorable’ when these taxing political career leeches do not, by any means, qualify for it.

The committee met more than 15 times over the 9 month period between March 28, 2013 and the end of December 2013. We spoke with representatives of 10 different groups (see appendix for listing of representative groups), and individual committee members attended other events, researched other state laws and regulations, reviewed academic literature and mass media articles,  and conducted individual interviews to learn more about ways to reduce gun violence in the Commonwealth. MARK’s NOTE: To reduce ‘gun violence’ one should consider turning their attention to the criminal element, but I guess THAT would not raise revenue…………its always about money.

Each committee member respected the perspectives of other members; this report is the very ‘positive outcome’ of this process.  MARK’s NOTE: But no one on the committee thought about respecting lawful citizens legally owning firearms……………no. “Positive outcome” if you are anti gun, anti Second Amendment.

Strength of Gun Laws:
1. Massachusetts already has some of the strongest gun laws in the nation.  For example, over the last few years the Brady Center ranked Massachusetts 3rd among US states in terms of strength of our gun laws. I n December 2013, a year after Newtown, with other states passing new laws, the Brady Center ranked Massachusetts 6th. MARK’s NOTE: So what’s the big issue? Oh, that’s right, revenue……bingo.

2.Massachusetts also has among the lowest rates of household firearm ownership.

3. Massachusetts also has lower rates of non-fatal firearm injuries than is average for the rest of the United States.

4. Typically some 13% of Massachusetts households report having a gun, compared to about 1/3 nationally.  Still, over two thousand people in Massachusetts died as the result of gunfire during the most recent decade.

5. Massachusetts has very low relative rates of gun death.  From 2001-2010, for example, we had the 2nd lowest rate among the 50 US states. From 2001-2010 in Massachusetts, 2,179 people died from gunshot wounds, a rate of 3.4/100,000.  In other words, the rest of America has over three times the gun death rate as do people in Massachusetts.

6. Massachusetts, with few guns, has the lowest rate of firearm suicide in the nation and a very average rate of non-firearm suicide.

7. Massachusetts has very low rates of gun homicide compared to other urban states.

8. New Hampshire is a prime source of gun trafficking into Boston. MARK’s NOTE: IF this is true, how will more restrictions on legal gun owners in Ma. help? Really?

9. Massachusetts has one of the lowest rates of unintentional firearm death in the nation, 24 people in Massachusetts were unintentionally killed with a firearm,2001-2010, in that decade.

10. Massachusetts is doing well compared to other US states in terms of gun deaths and injuries.  We could do better.  MARK’s NOTE: Of the last ten examples listed by the Committee where is the ‘panic’ and dire rush to implement stricter ‘gun control’ in Ma.? The emphasis throughout all of this you will see, is on ‘gun control’ and ‘revenue’, not one word on what to do about controlling CRIMINALS, I think reasonable people understand this to be an attack on our freedoms by this elitist ‘committee’, and the ‘honorable’ Robert DeLeo, nothing more, nothing less.

The committee recognizes that there have been many complaints that the lack of specific suitability standards has made the application process inconsistent throughout the municipalities in Massachusetts.  The committee also believes that placing a definition of suitability in statute will not provide the necessary flexibility and discretion needed in allowing the licensing authority to make a reasoned decision. MARK’s NOTE:  Not a criminal, get the license, that sounds reasonable to me, how about you?

The Committee recommends that the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association in conjunction with the Massachusetts ‘Gun Control’ Advisory Board specify a set of factors which defines what constitutes a suitable person for gun ownership and obtaining a gun license. MARK’s NOTE: How about if they have not committed a crime as the factor to determine suitability, end of this three ring circus…….

The Committee is very concerned that, (A person who may have been arrested numerous times without having been convicted must be granted a firearms identification card). MARK’s NOTE: “without having been convicted” this is KEY, means he was found innocent…………and should be granted an FID should he apply for one.

No further restrictions on magazine capacity.
The Committee recommends that no further restriction be placed upon firearm magazine capacity. Current Massachusetts law restricts large capacity magazines to 10 rounds. The Committee believes the current ‘restriction’ strikes a reasonable balance between public safety and personal liberty. MARK’s NOTE: Their glib use of the words ‘restriction’=infringement, and ‘personal liberty’ here are very elitist in the context they are put forth,(as if deemed from on high). How will any of this effect criminals one wonders? Really?

The costs of gun violence are enormous.  They include not only the pain, suffering, disability and possible death to the victim, but affect the victim’s family and friends.  The short and long-term medical costs can be large, particularly for spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries. MARK’s NOTE: Here is the ‘revenue’ angle again, they want lawful gun owners to pay the costs for what criminals do. This is the over riding theme throughout this obvious scam on legal gun ownership in Ma.

The Committee recommends a simple change in the law that will keep the license valid until the application is re-approved or denied by the Commonwealth. A simple rewording of the law to read in the appropriate sections that “a firearm identification card or a license to carry a firearm shall be valid, unless revoked or suspended, for a period of not more than 6 years from the date of issue, except that if the cardholder or license holder applied for renewal before the card or license expired, the card or license shall remain valid after the expiration date on the card or license, until the application for renewal is approved or denied.” By eliminating the 90 day period the onus is put back on the government to perform its bureaucratic duty. MARK’s NOTE: Of this entire document, this recommendation is the ONLY thing that made sense, and the ONLY thing that should be adopted! And they could add the license will still be suitable to purchase firearms and ammo no matter how long it takes the state to do its bureaucratic  duty.

The Committee recommends the development and implementation of firearms training consistent with existing licensing standards, and new suitability guidelines developed by the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association and the Massachusetts Gun Control Advisory Board.  This training should require applicants to complete a firearm safety course that contains an extensive live fire component. Current safety classes are not required to include live fire. MARK’s NOTE: Live fire can come after the background checks/license, not before, endangering instructors that hand people firearms who have not been checked out…….dangerous for instructors. Define ‘extensive’, this is another way to make it difficult for people to schedule any class.

The Committee also recommends that this firearm safety course be standardized and accredited. MARK’s NOTE: This means large centralized firearm safety schools have crawled into bed with the politicians and want the whole pie/state to themselves, knock off the individual instructors……….how does one become ‘accredited’?

There are currently two separate lists of approved firearms in Massachusetts.  The Executive Office of Public Safety’s approved weapons roster established by law and the Attorney General’s consumer protection regulations established under administrative rules and regulations. This is confusing to police chiefs, officers, gun dealers, and the gun owner. The Committee recommends that the Attorney General’s list and the Executive Office of Public Safety list be made consistent. MARK’s NOTE: This can only mean a wider gun ban.

Our recommendations are intended to tighten the already strong gun legislation in Massachusetts, and are directed toward those irresponsible gun owners, who do not follow the Commonwealth laws and regulations. MARK’s NOTE: WHAT?! Not directed towards the criminal?! Get ready folks……….

MARK’s Summary:  I will not go any further today, this is the second installment of four from me concerning this ‘Committees’ proposed ‘gun control’ changes. You read it and saw my notes/opinions in red, what are yours? All this is slanted towards squeezing gun owners out ultimately in Ma. My only question is, will we allow it to happen? We have the power in the voting booth to effect real change in this one party state, all incumbent’s need to be sent home, they have caused enough damage already by blatantly breaking their oaths to office. Maybe new blood in office will think more of their constituents and be far less self serving than what we are suffering now.

Mark Shean & Son

www.mafirearmsafety.com

508-333-6151

 
 
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Ma. Gun Laws Alert #2, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Leave a Reply