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!

It Appears the Redcoats are here, and in political office.

The speaker of the House, Robert Deleo, is going to push,(under cover of darkness of course) 44 ‘gun control’ recommendations down our throats, (if we let the oath breaker) in June or July of this year, many will mirror what has just been forced on the citizens of Connecticut. These ‘recommendations’ come from a group of so-called academic ‘experts‘ that have blocked any discussion/debate from pro gun groups/people. (Can you say left wing agenda?)

This is a small sample of these so-called ‘recommendations’.

1. A monthly limit on gun purchases.

2. No more private sales between licensed gun owners.

3.  A limit on firearm magazine capacity.

4. Liability insurance for every gun you own.

5. A requirement that firearms only be stored at gun clubs, not in homes.

6. Unlimited control to Police Chiefs as to who they allow a gun license, regardless that you have no criminal record, total arbitrary discretion. (Can you say police state?)

7. Making the firearm safety class at least 8 hours long, to include live fire, ( police are not willing to give anyone a gun license prior to a background check but it would be OK to put guns in their hands prior to a bakground check, thus endangering the instructors, brilliant!).

8. Expanded gun ban list, (if your guns are on the list you will have to turn them in or be an overnight felon!) They would throw the working tax base of the state in jail…….’morons r us’ in public office! Nothing ‘honorable’ about any of this.

This is a partial list, none of it good for law abiding citizens. Its been difficult to find the complete list of Robert Deleo’s  44 gun control recommendations, (the crook is hiding the rest of it) I am sure the rest are just as or more unpleasant but, as you know, the ones they made public have absolutely nothing to do with fighting crime, and everything to do with control. Like criminals will give a damn….

They also say that it will help close ‘loopholes’ but do not explain what loopholes they are talking about, because there are none, name me one, and I will expose it as a lie!

Ask your ‘Representative’ how any of this reduces crime. You will get knee jerk emotional BS, not facts!

Gun liability insurance would also be a despicable form of discrimination by the ruling class elite against lower income people, the very people who live in areas that are most susceptible to higher crime rates, need the self defense a firearm allows for protection and would be denied that protection simply because they could not afford the insurance on a Constitutional right! = backdoor gun ban! Unconstitutional on the very face of it!

Registration of your guns would have to be next, how else would they know if you have guns to insure otherwise? Registration throughout history has ALWAYS led to CONFISCATION! Never do it, that’s where Americans will draw a line in the sand, as over 350,000 citizens in Connecticut have refused to register and are now felons, the tax base of the state, felons, very bright, along with over 68% of the police, wow! The elite politicians there are now horror stricken because of this blatant civil disobedience to their unconstitutional dictates……(can you say election year clean house baby)!

MARK’S NOTICE:

I can not sugar coat this, that is not my style anyway, Those that took my class probably can remember how I feel about so-called ’gun control’. I will not beat around the bush. Draconian changes are in the wind from the very people you elected to uphold the public trust. They swore to uphold the Constitution, they LIED, don’t forget that in Nov.  

The changes they want to dictate/impose on us will make it very difficult for most people to get their LTC with no restrictions because Speaker Robert Deleo wants police arbitrary discretion to run amok! If you know anyone who has been sitting on the fence procrastinating about getting a gun license, tell them to get off the fence and sign up for a class somewhere, but do it soon! After June they may have lost their chance and whining will not help them.

None of this reduces crime! Only your RIGHTS!

PLEASE pass this on to your family and friends, contact your public servant’s at 617-722-2000, remind them who they work for. Time is growing very short before the onslaught on our gun rights begin under the pretext of ‘crime control’ from your so-called ‘representative’s’ up on ’Bacon’ Hill.
Sincerely,

Mark Shean & Son

508-333-5151

mshean1955@yahoo.com

www.mafirearmsafety.com

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Recently USA TODAY put out a disturbing article based on their investigation titled ‘Fugitives Next Door, a License to Commit Crimes’  This investigation brought up some pretty scary findings about the legal system and how it regularly drops the ball while dealing with violent criminals/felons, and how we become victims because of it.

Before I summerize the story let me just say this about USA TODAY, this paper has never been pro gun rights, and I do not believe they intended to be pro gun in this article. Even so, USA TODAY inadvertently makes a very compelling case for legal gun ownership/personal protection in this article.

The story is based on facts surrounding the ability of fugitives to go from state to state, with no one chasing them, to rape, kidnap, rob and murder again and again, with the knowledge that law enforcement is unwilling/unable to chase them.

Bullet Points from investigation:

*Tens of thousands of accused felons get away easily, because police and prosecutors across much of the U.S. will not pursue them beyond their state boarders.

*With no one in pursuit, wanted fugitives went on to rape, kidnap, rob banks, and murder, often as close as the state next door.

*One victim, Frederick Tucker was brutally murdered by 3 fugitives the police had allowed to go free previously, these three men were wanted in other states with a long list of serious crimes. You ask how can this happen? The next point explains.

*Many times, because prosecutors do not approve extridition if a criminal is found in another state, the fugitives name will not be entered into the FBI data base, because of this, another state where the fugitive commits a crime does not know he is wanted somewhere else!

*Officials in Penn. have chosen not to pursue more than 20,000 people once they cross the state boarder.

*There are over 186,873 felony suspects whom police nationwide say will not be pursued into other states.

*There is a history of violence committed by wanted felony suspects, often after police, not knowing they were wanted in another state, let them go!

*In Tennessee, police charged that a fugitive from Florida, fatally shot four people on a quiet country road after Florida prosecutors had turned down 4 chances to come get him due to other charges…………four people murdered needlessly.

*Felon Lemont Pride was set free in N.Y. because North Carolina would not come to get him for shooting a man in N.C.  One month later Pride murdered a NYC police officer during a drug robbery………..”It becomes, to some degree a cost decision. We just cant bring everybody back”, said Howard Neumann, a district attorney in N.C.

*One in six homicide suspects arrested in D.C. were already wanted elsewhere!

These grim and startling statistics go on and on, with these findings, USA TODAY has done law abiding gun owners a service, I think we should cling to our guns and Bible a little tighter now. And at the same time tell anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment politicians to back off from their misguided attacks on law abiding citizens and start talking about crime control instead, or be booted from office!

In my opinion, gun owners who vote for any candidate(s) that are in favor of ’gun control’, amounts to the same thing as  turkeys voting in favor of Thanksgiving………

Mark Shean  

www.mafirearmsafety.com

 

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 121 of chapter 140 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the figure “(30)”, in line 11, the following words:- as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994.

SECTION 2. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the figure “922″, in line 21, the following words:- as appearing in such appendix on September 13, 1994.

SECTION 3. Said section 121 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the figure “(31)”, in line 58, the following words:- as appearing in such section on September 13, 1994.

SECTION 4. Section 129B of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “board”, in line 148, the following words:- in a size and shape equivalent to that of a license to operate motor vehicles issued by the registry of motor vehicles pursuant to section 8 of chapter 90.

SECTION 5. The first sentence of clause (9) of said section 129B of said chapter 140, as most recently amended by section 34 of chapter 140 of the acts of 2003, is hereby amended by striking out the figure “4″ and inserting in place thereof the following figure:- 6.

SECTION 6. Said first sentence of said clause (9) of said section 129B of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “issue” the following words:- , except that if the cardholder applied for renewal before the card expired, the card shall remain valid for a period of 90 days after the stated expiration date on the card, unless the application for renewal is denied.

SECTION 7. Clause (12) of said section 129B of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “expired”, in line 201 the following words:- , meaning after 90 days beyond the stated expiration date on the card.

SECTION 8. Said clause (12) of said section 129B of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by striking out, in line 215, the words “expired on” and inserting in place thereof the following words:- expired, meaning after 90 days beyond the stated expiration date on the card, or.

SECTION 9. Said chapter 140 is hereby further amended by inserting after section 130 the following section:-

Section 130B. (a) There shall be a firearm licensing review board, established within the criminal history systems board, in this section called the board, comprised of 7 members, 1 of whom shall be a member of the criminal history systems board appointed by the executive director and who shall be the chair, 1 of whom shall be the secretary of public safety or his designee, 1 of whom shall be the colonel of state police or his designee, 1 of whom shall be appointed by the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, 1 of whom shall be the attorney general or his designee, 1 whom shall be an attorney with litigation experience in firearm licensing cases and appointed by the governor from a list of qualified persons submitted to the governor by the Massachusetts Bar Association, and 1 of whom shall be a retired member of the judiciary and appointed by the governor.

(b) An applicant for a firearm identification card or license to carry who has been convicted of or adjudicated a delinquent child or youthful offender by reason of an offense or offenses punishable by 2 1/2 years imprisonment or less when committed under the laws of the commonwealth which was not: (a) an assault or battery on a family member or household member, as defined by section 1 of chapter 209A, except that the determination to be made under clause (e) of said section 1 of said chapter 209A shall be made by the review board, may, after the passage of 5 years from conviction, adjudication as a youthful offender or a delinquent child or release from confinement, commitment, probation or parole supervision for such conviction or adjudication, whichever is last occurring, file a petition for review of eligibility with the firearm licensing review board.

(c) The petitioner shall provide to the board a copy of a completed firearm identification card or license to carry application, which application shall have previously been submitted to the licensing authority or be submitted to the licensing authority contemporaneously with the petition filed with the board. The petitioner shall have the burden to prove his suitability to receive a firearm identification card or a license to carry by clear and convincing evidence. The board shall set a reasonable filing fee to file the petition.

(d) If the board determines, by 2/3rds vote, that: (i) the sole disqualifier for the petitioner is any conviction or adjudication as a youthful offender or a delinquent child for an offense or offenses punishable by 2 1/2 years imprisonment or less when committed under the laws of the commonwealth, arising out of a single incident and which does not otherwise disqualify the petitioner under subclauses (a), (d) or (e) of clause (i) or clauses (ii) to (ix), inclusive, of paragraph (1) of section 129B or subclauses (a), (d) or (e) of clause (i) or clauses (ii) to (vii), inclusive, of paragraph (d) of section 131, and which was not an assault or battery on a family member or household members, as defined by section 1 of chapter 209A, except that the determination to be made under clause (e) of said section 1 of said chapter 209A shall be made by the board; (ii) 5 years has passed since such conviction or adjudication or release from confinement, commitment, probation or parole supervision for such conviction or adjudication, whichever is last occurring; and (iii) by clear and convincing evidence, that the petitioner is a suitable person to be a firearm identification card or license to carry holder, the board shall determine that the petitioner’s right or ability to possess a firearm is fully restored in the commonwealth with respect to such conviction or adjudication and that such conviction or adjudication shall not prohibit such petitioner from applying to a licensing authority for a firearm identification card or license to carry. The board shall make a determination on a petition within 60 days after receipt of the petition.

(e) The board shall hold hearings at such times and places as in its discretion it reasonably determines to be required, but not less than once every 90 days, and shall give reasonable notice of the time and place of the hearing to the petitioner. The board shall have the power to compel attendance of witnesses at hearings.

(f) All hearings shall be conducted in an informal manner, but otherwise according to the rules of evidence, and all witnesses shall be sworn by the chair. If requested by the petitioner and payment for stenographic services, as determined by the board, accompanies such request, the board shall cause a verbatim transcript of the hearing to be made. The board’s decisions and findings of facts therefore shall be communicated in writing to the petitioner and to the licensing authority to whom the petitioner has applied or intends to apply within 20 days of rendering a decision.

(g) Members of the board shall serve without compensation, but shall be entitled to reasonable subsistence and travel allowances in the performance of their duties.

SECTION 10. Section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “board”, in line 210, the following words:- in a size and shape equivalent to that of a license to operate motor vehicles issued by the registry of motor vehicles pursuant to section 8 of chapter 90.

SECTION 11. The first paragraph of subsection (i) of said section 131 of said chapter 140, as most recently amended by section 103 of chapter 46 of the acts of 2003, is hereby further amended by striking out the first 2 sentences and inserting in place thereof the following 2 sentences:- A license to carry or possess firearms shall be valid, unless revoked or suspended, for a period of not more than 6 years from the date of issue and shall expire on the anniversary of the licensee’s date of birth occurring not less than 5 years but not more than 6 years from the date of issue, except that if the licensee applied for renewal before the license expired, the license shall remain valid for a period of 90 days beyond the stated expiration date on the license, unless the application for renewal is denied. Any renewal thereof shall expire on the anniversary of the licensee’s date of birth occurring not less than 5 years but not more than 6 years from the effective date of such license.

SECTION 12. The fifth sentence of subsection (i) of said section 131 of said chapter 140, inserted by section 429 of chapter 26 of the acts of 2003, is hereby amended by inserting after the word “commonwealth” the following words:- and not less than $50,000 of the funds deposited into the General Fund shall be allocated to the Firearm Licensing Review Board, established in section 130B, for its operations and that any funds not expended by said board for its operations shall revert back to the General Fund.

SECTION 13. Said first paragraph of said subsection (i) of said section 131 of said chapter 140, as most recently amended by section 103 of chapter 46 of the acts of 2003, is hereby further amended by adding the following sentence:- For the purposes of section 10 of chapter 269, an expired license to carry firearms shall be deemed to be valid for a period not to exceed 90 days beyond the stated date of expiration, unless such license to carry firearms has been revoked.

SECTION 14. Said section 131 of said chapter 140, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the figure “70″, in line 243, the following words:- and any law enforcement officer applying for a license to carry firearms through his employing agency.

SECTION 15. Said section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after the word “expired”, in lines 280 and 293, the following words:- , meaning after 90 days beyond the stated expiration date on the license.

SECTION 16. Subsection (m) of said section 131 of said chapter 140, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting after the second sentence the following sentence:- The officer shall, at the time of confiscation, provide to the person whose firearm, rifle or shotgun has been confiscated, a written inventory and receipt for all firearms, rifles or shotguns confiscated and the officer and his employer shall exercise due care in the handling, holding and storage of these items.

SECTION 17. Section 18C of chapter 265 of the General Laws, as so appearing, is hereby amended by striking out the second, third, fourth and fifth sentences.

Approved July 1, 2004.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

To anyone who has taken my class, you know that I am watching the politics of our gun rights and those who would wantonly infringe upon them. Please consider forwarding to others you know who may be legal gun owners in Ma.
If you received this twice I apologize for any inconvenience.

Recently I picked up on an article from Boston.com. [In wake of Newtown massacre, Mass. 'panel' recommends that state gun laws be tightened]

Excerpt from this article:
“More than a year after the school shootings in Newtown, Conn., a panel of ‘academic experts’ today released a long-awaited report recommending that Massachusetts tighten its gun laws, which are already considered among the toughest in the country.”{The panel made 44 recommendations.}

These 44 recommendations were not listed in the article for the public to see……………Mark’s note.

This panel of so-called ‘academic experts’ who obviously are not elected to represent us and are not accountable to us, are going to dictate how our gun rights/freedoms should mirror those passed in Ct. recently. They like the draconian new ‘laws’, including ‘gun registration’ that the politicians in Connecticut recently just imposed/forced on the people of that state in typical kneejerk fashion due to the actions of one well documented mentally ill person.

In essence, Ct. politicians made felons of all legal gun owners who did not register their guns by 1-1-2014, over 300,000 thousand have refused to register their guns in Ct. making the politicians there VERY nervous about retaining their phony jobs in Nov. as well they should be, for forgetting their oath to office when they swore too uphold the Constitution.

Excerpt From these ‘experts’:
“Overall, Massachusetts continues to be a leader nationally in efforts to reduce gun violence. The committee believes that even more can be done,” the report said. “The committee recognizes that changes such as those proposed in this report may be challenging, but if adopted, provide a pathway to further reduce gun violence in the Commonwealth.”

Mark’s Translation: Replace “reduce gun violence” from the above statement and insert (‘remove more gun rights from legal gun owners’!)

This group of ‘intellectuals’ have NOT allowed any discussion from gun rights advocates in this so-called ‘process’. Why would these mental giants be afraid to allow legal gun owners a chance to discuss/participate? Simple, they have a set anti gun agenda, they do not want to ‘muddy’ the waters with real facts, that would only impede this anti gun agenda, an agenda that they wish to impose on us before the Ma. House of Representative’s in June. That’s not very far away folks.

Why do they have more of a voice than the constituents who actually elect those in the House?? Why indeed…….

Our freedoms are only as strong as the current generation is in protecting them, you need to protect your rights under the Constitution if you expect them to be there for your posterity, they were protected in the past for you to now enjoy. Term limits initiated at the voting booth, we have that power!

What you need/should do is call your Representative’s on Beacon Hill at 617-722-2000, or the link to a directory of representatives, if your not sure who represents you, (since no one seems too) is,  https://malegislature.gov/people/house   just copy and paste to discover who your rep may be.

Let them know that they can not hide behind a group of unaccountable left wing ’academics’ who want nothing better than to take our freedoms, that we will remember in November if they do not stop this assault on our gun rights in the pretext of stopping crime! Please, take a moment from your day to contact them…..

A free and lawful citizenry should never have to conform to every act of the criminal/mentally ill element, as these so-called ‘academics‘ want, instead the criminal element had better conform to society as a whole or pay the price with hard jail time/death!

REMEMBER:
“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1885)

Sincerely,
Mark Shean & Son
www.mafirearmsafety.com

==============================================

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

1. ”A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through…all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” - Marcus Tullius Cicero

1. Rome then, Washington D.C. today

2.An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Norton v. Shelby County, US Supreme Court Decision 118 US 425, 442 (in 1886)

2. This was at a time when no one in political office ‘pretended’ that they did not understand our Constitution……..

3.Patriots are not revolutionaries trying to overthrow government. Patriots are counter-revolutionaries trying to prevent government from overthrowing the U.S. Constitution.
Author unknown

3. Executive Orders are now circumventing Congress while they sit on their hands doing nothing!

4.The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are constitutional rights secure.
Albert Einstein

4. So defend it, or it will not be there for your descendants as it was for you…..starting, at first, in the voting booth !

Mark Shean

www.mafirearmsafety.com

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

Recently someone who had taken my class had followed my advice about how to handle a town that only wanted to give a restricted license to the law abiding citizens that pay their salary’s, the particular town he lives in is Wareham, there are other towns that also disrespect the residents in this manner. You may want to read the following letter he sent me, with his permission, I have put it on my website.

Comment: Mark, I have been meaning to contact you and thank you for your help but I wanted to wait until I had good news yesterday I picked up my class A license at the Wareham PD; a full five months after my interview, and almost seven months after I applied.

The interview went well and in fact it went down just as you suggested it would. I was told that they would probably start me off with just an FID I politely said, not interested; if you want to reject my application do so in writing and I will appeal.

I was then told that we’re winning all the appeals. I replied, you would not win this one. I am a picture of stability. I’ve been in the same job for forty years, the same address for 30 years, I pay all my taxes & bills, I owe nobody anything, I’ve never been in trouble or arrested, and I’m not going to be the only one in this town without a gun. If I don’t qualify then nobody here does and you’ll have to defend virtually every permit you have given out to justify excluding me.

The officer then said well we don’t  give you a license to drive without a permit why would we give you a permit to carry a handgun when you have no experience? I said well, I don’t have a right to drive, but I do have a constitutional right to have a weapon and since you brought it up, I’ve had a drivers license for 43 years, driven over one million miles, and not had an accident.

At the end I said; Look,I don’t own any property that I can’t just replace. I don’t own anything that’s worth hurting anyone or getting in trouble over but I do have a wife and two daughters in a neighborhood that is becoming increasingly dangerous, and the police alone cannot guarantee their safety. The officers response, perfect.

So again, thanks a lot for your help Mark, particularly with preparing me for that interview. Tom M.

Thomas, Wareham Ma. 9-15-2013

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)

It falls under Section 103(i) in the Brady Law:  And backs up the Second Amendment………….

(i) PROHIBITION RELATING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF REGISTRATION SYSTEMS WITH RESPECT TO FIREARMS- No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may–

(1) require that any record or portion thereof generated by the system established under this section be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof; or

(2) use the system established under this section to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons, prohibited by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm.

“….the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Infringe means to encroach. You cannot even encroach on that right. Any thing which restricts in any manner the right to keep and bear arms is Unconstitutional. Now you must understand that therefore any federal firearms laws are unconstitutional.

 

The answer to that question decides what type of country we live in: a constitutional republic where individuals have unalienable rights, or an unlimited democracy where individuals have only privileges the fickle majority grants them.

 

“Shall not be infringed” is powerful language. Up there with “Congress shall make no law…”

Requiring paperwork, and disclosure of private information are all infringements.

 

It’s real easy, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

If the feds are data basing gun owners they are infringing their right to keep and bear arms by requiring an unreasonable action on the part of the gun owner. A database has the potential to be abused therefore it is in itself an infringement of the right to own a firearm.

“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 inevitably ruined.” unquote, -Patrick Henry-

Take heed from this very astute
warning fellow Americans…

Mark Shean

MA.FID/LTC/FL CCW

www.mafirearmsafety.com

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (3 votes cast)
AT schools, and other ‘gunfree’ zones/mass killers have all been Democrats
Comment;
 
Why is it that those who steal guns and kill movie goers and children in schools are always Democrats and never conservatives or NRA members, or Tea Party members as the loony left media initially, wishfully reports each and every time?
 
Fort Hood shooter-Registered Democrat- Muslim, (terrorist act) even though Obama refuses to say what the world all knows it to be.
 
 Columbine shooters- Too young to vote but both families were registered as Democrats, (bad upbringing).
 
 Virginia Tech shooter – Registered Democrat – Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff.
 
Colorado Theater shooter – Registered Democrat; staff worker on the Obama campaign; Occupy Wall Street participant; progressive liberal.
 
 Connecticut School Shooter – Registered Democrat; hated Christians.
 
 Congresswoman Gabby Giffords’, shooter – Leftist, registered Democrat.
 
 LA cop killer Chris Downer, registered Democrat.
 
 All of these shooters were progressive Democrats!
 
Why is it that the media always tells us that conservative Tea Party, NRA-type gun-owners are the real danger?
 
 Lesson… Don’t ever trust the loony left media! Or any politicians, but that probably goes without saying………
 

 THE SOLUTION: Is to  obviously  ban self proclaimed registered ‘progressive’ Democrats from owning guns. It would be a much safer world……but history shows they would steal the guns first anyway!

4-18-2013

www.mafirearmsafety.com 

 
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)

Fellow American’s,

Would you like to contact the 46 ’Democrats‘, and two “Independent’” Senators that voted to destroy your  Second  Amendment rights, and Sovereignty by circumventing our Constitution? Would you like to contact  those traitorous  Senators that voted to give the power over your rights to the United  Nations through the so-called ATT-Treaty?

Fortunately, the odious, anti-American treaty was again voted down by the majority of the Senate, but 46 Senators voted in favor of handing over our  Constitutional  rights to the UN.  HAD ONLY FIVE MORE SENATORS VOTED IN FAVOR, OBAMA WOULD HAVE GLEEFULLY SIGNED IT INTO LAW!!  Does there need to be a REAL house cleaning in 2014?  YOU BET YOUR FREEDOMS!!!

Below is the list of 46 ’Democrats‘, and two Independent’ Senators that voted in  favor of giving the UN  the power to overturn the U.S. Constitution and our Sovereignty! There is NOTHING ‘Honorable’ about these jack asses, they know that they can not run on the Socialist platform so they disguise themselves as ‘Democrats‘  and are trying their damnedest to destroy America from within, just as Russia predicted would happen since the 50′s. Contact these so-called ‘representative’s', let them know that they have tipped their subversive hand for the last time and their phony baloney jobs are coming to an end!

A Quote that we should all heed, I think he saw this ilk of vermin coming. :   “I  am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any  threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from  within”. U.S. General Douglas MacArthur.

 “We cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.”  Russian Leader Nikki Kruschev , 1950′s UN speech.

Tammy Baldwin (D) WI  www.baldwin.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Max Baucus (D) MT  www.baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

Mike Bennet (D) CO  www.bennet.senate.gov/contact/

Rich Blumenthal (D) CT  www.blumenthal.senate.gov/contact/

Barbie Boxer (D) CA www.boxer.senate.gov/en/contact/

Sherrod Brown (D) OH  www.brown.senate.gov/contact/

Maria Cantwell (D) WA www.cantwell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-maria

Benny Cardin (D) MD www.cardin.senate.gov/contact/

Tom Carper (D) DE  carper.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-senator-carper

Bob Casey Jr. (D) PA  www.casey.senate.gov/contact/

Chris Coons (D) DE  www.coons.senate.gov/contact/

Billy Cowan (D) MA  www.cowan.senate.gov/contact

Richy Durbin (D) IL www.durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Dianne Feinstein (D) CA  www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me

Al Frankin (D) MN www.franken.senate.gov/?p=contact

Kirsten Gillibrand (D) NYwww.gillibrand.senate.gov/contact/

Tommy Harkin (D) IA www.harkin.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Mazie Hirono (D) HI www.hirono.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Timmy Johnson (D) SD www.johnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact

Timmy Kaine (D) VA  www.kaine.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Angus King Jr. (I) ME www.king.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Amy Klobuchar (D) MN www.klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm

Mary Landrieu (D) LA www.landrieu.senate.gov/?p=contact

Pat Leahy (D) VT www.leahy.senate.gov/contact/

Carl Levin (D) MI www.levin.senate.gov/contact/

Claire McCaskill (D) MO www.mccaskill.senate.gov/?p=contact

Bobby Menendez (D) NJ menendez.senate.gov/contact/

Jeffrey Merkley (D) OR www.merkley.senate.gov/contact/

Barb Mikulski (D) MD www.mikulski.senate.gov/contact/

Chris Murphy (D) CT www.murphy.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Patty Murray (D) WA www.murray.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contactme

Billy  Nelson (D) FL www.billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Jack Reed (D) RI www.reed.senate.gov/contact/

Harry Reid (D) NV www.reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Johnny Rockefeller (D) WA www.rockefeller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-jay

Bernard Sanders (I) VT www.sanders.senate.gov/contact/

Brian Schatz (D) HI  www.schatz.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Chucky Schumer (D) NY www.schumer.senate.gov/Contact/contact_chuck.cfm

Jeanne Shaheen (D) NH www.shaheen.senate.gov/contact/

Debby Stabenow (D) MI www.stabenow.senate.gov/?p=contact

Mark Udall (D) CO www.markudall.senate.gov/?p=contact

Tommy Udall (D) NM www.tomudall.senate.gov/?p=contact

Mark Warner (D) VA www.warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact

Lizzy Warren (D) MA www.warren.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Sheldon Whitehouse (D) RI www.whitehouse.senate.gov/contact/

Ronney Wyden (D) OR www.wyden.senate.gov/contact/

Mark Shean, submitted 4-5-2013

“We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security” President Dwight D. Eisenhower

They  who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve  neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin

“The history of free men is never really written by chance but by choice, their choice! President Dwight D. Eisenhower

“Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.” Benjamin Franklin

Mark Shean, submitted 4-5-2013

www.mafirearmsafety.com

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (4 votes cast)