The Ma. E-FA10 form is a transfer of ownership form, it is not gun registration. When you buy a firearm at the gun store, or from an individual, you have to fill out that FA10 form online now, by law, to transfer ownership of that firearm. If you did not do that in Ma. you would be committing a felony. See ‘Notice’ 20 lines down as to why this is not registration. See (GS#36).

If you want to register your firearm(s) on a voluntary basis only in Ma. you can, but why would you? Hold off on that.

When registration is the goal of any government body it is always proceeded with unconstitutional, very dire threats to the entire population of the impending penalties/prison time, if you don’t comply by such-n-such a date you will become an overnight felon, we will come after you, we will kick in your doors!….. those types of threats. Such as oath breakers in Connecticut and New York have just tried to impose on the citizens of those two states as of the deadline 1-1-2014, using the lie of ‘gun control’ to stop mental cases from killing people as a reason. Only a very small fraction have complied, (best kept news secret) the rest have publicly said to the oath breakers in office to go to hell, come take them! The police have said they will not enforce the dictate because it would needlessly put them in harms way. Now, there are very nervous politicians in those two states, as they should be, this is an election year…….

If you move into Ma. from out of state with your firearms, you have 180 days to get a LTC to legally keep them, in the meantime they would be properly stored under Ma. law, (see GS#22) you could not use them until you received your Ma. license. Once you obtain your LTC you are under NO obligation to turn in a list of your firearms. If you want to sell any of them in the future, at that point you would be required to file the E-FA10 Transfer of Ownership form.

NOTICE: Ma. Firearms records are EXEMPTED from the public records statute.  G.L c.4,§7 (clause twenty-six)(j).  The Firearm Record Bureau (FRB) may not disseminate firearms records “to any person, firm, corporation, entity or agency except criminal justice agencies as defined in chapter six and except to the extent such information relates solely to the person making the request and is necessary to the official interests of the entity making the request.”  G.L. c. 66, § 10(d). Note: Such as Law Enforcement in tracking ownership of a gun that was used in a crime.

Firearm registration is Unconstitutional;

It falls under Section 103(i) in the Brady Law:
(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, (convicted criminals) by section 922 (g) or (n) of title 18, United States Code or State law, from receiving a firearm.

NOTE:….”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 for the law abiding is Unconstitutional.

This 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. We live in a Republic, as instituted by our Founders.

It’s real easy, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”, is powerful language, it is up there with “Congress shall make no law…” in the First Amendment.

If the feds are databasing 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 great potential to be abused, therefore it is in itself an infringment of the right to own a firearm.

Under the 4th Amendment; Unreasonable searches and seizures are those that are without cause, actually without probable cause.Probable cause means that the police have to have a good reason to believe that someone has broken the law. The police can not do anything until they convince a judge that they have probable cause, and then they can get a warrant which gives them permission to search. Without a warrant they would need YOUR permission to search your car, home, etc.

 Under the 14th Amendment; No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or PROPERTY, (such as guns), without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

In Ma. a 209-A restraining order can violate your 14th Amendment protection based on nothing but hearsay, allowing someone to manipulate the court as a tool of harassment. This is done prior to your due process of law.

Mark Shean & Son

www.mafirearmsafety.com

Submitted 10-21-2014

 

Question: Can a LEGAL Resident Alien apply now for an LTC, (license to carry) in Massachusetts ?

Answer: Yes, a Legal Resident Alien (so-called ‘green card’ holder) can apply for an LTC on the SAME BASIS as a citizen.  It is the result of the federal court, Fletcher v. Haas decision, found here:  Civil Action No. 11-10644-DPW.

If you run into a Police Department, (PD) that refuses to process your application even though you are a Legal Resident Alien, please contact Comm2A (though the word is pretty much out, and PD’s seem to be processing such apps) as they should be.

Permanent legal resident aliens (so-called ‘green card’ holders) are treated the same as citizens with a license duration of 6 years and the $100 fee. The case was all about fairness for legal resident aliens – and we scored a decisive win.

NOTE: A yearly license fee for Non-residents is $100 per year, which I believe is designed to discourage people from out-of-state.

Commonwealth Second Amendment group, (lawyers) www.com2a.org  or  info@com2a.org  or 617-942-0660

Comm2A | PO Box 301398 | Jamaica Plain | MA | 02130

Mark Shean & Son
www.mafirearmsafety.com
508-333-6151

Anything NOT mentioned here remains the same as when you took the class, please read and file it in your folder.
Please acknowledge to me that you got this updated information in a short email, I would appreciate your response.
Any questions, as always you should know that you can email me at( mshean1955@yahoo.com or mshean1955@hotmail.com )
Sincerely,Mark Shean and Son
www.mafirearmsafety.com
H. 4376 HighlightsBreakdown;
H.4376 Accomplished many positive things for Massachusetts gun owners including:Juniors:
•Critical training language correction for juniors, this now allows trainers to provide firearms to junior shooters and hunters with parental consent
•Allow juniors to apply for their FID card a year early (age 14) and receive
their card at 15. Price still $25.Pepper Spray:
•Person over the age of 18 will no longer need an FID card to purchase pepper spray
•15-17 year old can still possess – but must have an FID card or class D license.FID:
•Chiefs must first petition the court to deny someone his/her FID card.
•Because it is in the courts, it gives GOAL, Gun Owners Action League, and others the ability to track what Chiefs are doing.
On a side NOTE: in Ma., courts will probably err with the chief as the courts here are not very gun friendly as we all know. So this still
could allow abuse from certain chief’s that do not like mere civilians to have firearms……….I know of a few towns where the chief’s will
continue to abuse their authority, the courts should over ride them in frivolous cases if there were actual justice in play, time will tell.Both licenses:
•The term “prohibited person” is now being used for both licenses, FID and LTC – instead of “suitable”
•This change in the language provides a much needed change in framework around whom is prohibited.
•The 90 day grace period is gone. Gun owners will now receive a receipt upon renewal, which makes
the license valid until the new license is received, no matter how long the state takes to send you your new license.
NOTE: Don’t lose the receipt, make a copy for your file.Mental Health:
•Added language so that people who voluntary seek mental health help will not be listed as a prohibited person through the NICS.

Olympic-style Handguns:
•There will be exemptions for the sale of Olympic-style handguns in the Commonwealth
•They were previously not legal to transfer by licensed dealers in the Commonwealth.

Curios and Relic Collectors:
•Collectors can now purchase handguns and firearms that may not comply with the approved firearms roster.

Online portal:
•Created online portal for face-to-face transfers, preserving private sales. Go to the Ma. State Police website to find this. Hopefully it will be working.

LTC:
•The Class B+A License were eliminated; going forward there is only one License to Carry. (LTC). It will now just be a LTC firearms in the commonwealth of Ma., If you already have a class B license it will remain in effect until it expires on your birthday. Please read Gun Sense #39.
•Chiefs now have to put denials in writing for the LTC, within 40 days, (the police sometimes violate this 40 day law…), they always were supposed to notify within 40 days…not sure why this was listed here?
•For the first time, gun owners can appeal their LTC restrictions in District Court  – now the burden of proof is on the police chief to defend the denial or restriction in District Court and in writing. NOTE: This may burden some chief’s from just arbitrarily denying people offhand as some of them were infamous for doing in the past…..

Confiscation:
•We added language that if your firearms get confiscated that the licensing authority shall at that time inform the person in writing of their ability to transfer their firearms to an independent licensed individual. NOTE: You always could do this, they just did not tell you, so I made a point too in class.

Lost & Stolen Firearm:
•GOAL put in language so that a person who, in good faith, reports their firearm as lost or stolen – this shall not make them considered a prohibited person – period.

Military Personnel:
•We extended the time period an active duty military member has to become licensed, or renew their license from 90 to 180 days.
•We exempted active duty military members from having to take the mandatory gun safety training classes.

Recap:

•Police chiefs gain discretion over the issuance of FID cards, however they must petition the district court in order to deny an FID card for any non-statutory reason;
•Court-ordered commitments (and relief) relative to mental illness, alcohol and substance abuse will now be reported to the Federal National Instant Check System, (NICS).
•’Suitability’ is better defined;
•Improved opportunities to appeal suspended, revoked, denied, or restricted licenses to carry;
•Expired licenses remain valid indefinitely if a renewal is in process;
•Reduced penalties for failing to renew a license;
•License renewals now require an affidavit stating that the licensee has not had any firearms lost or stolen since their last license was issued;
•Increased penalties for carrying on school grounds, improper storage, and failure to report a lost or stolen firearm;
•Elimination of the Class B License to Carry; Gone-
•Elimination of the licensing requirement to possess or purchase pepper spray; Gone for anyone 18 or older, but, 15-17 still need a class D for pepper spray.
•Requirement to report face-to-face firearms transfers in ‘real time’.

Even after the passage of H.4376 our rights are severely compromised in Massachusetts. However this legislation provides us with more opportunities to leverage the courts in regaining our rights.

Again, please drop me a line in an email that you have received this, thanks.

 

Mark Shean & Son
www.mafirearmsafety.com
508-333-6151

I will give you my definition of how a Representative becomes a politician:

When we vote for a new candidate we want someone who will represent us and honor their oath to office by defending our Constitution, ALL of it, not cherry pick what they like. We call these people Representative’s and they are public servants, in the public domain, in short, public property, in either party.

Now somewhere along the line they start losing sight that they are supposed to represent the People, and they instead start to represent special lobbyist groups that are made up of big money and people who do not even live in the district the representative comes from, so this means he/she no longer cares about his/her constituent’s, that is the moment he/she becomes a Politician.  It now becomes all about  short sighted agenda(s) and self interests, and no longer the will of the People who put him/her there.

I hope that was helpful? When they get to this point, it is time to BOOT THEM OUT on their ear, for freedoms sake!

“A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government”. -GEORGE WASHINGTON-.

 

Mark Shean,

Submitted 8-10-2014

www.mafirearmsafety.com

 

This was Sent to me by Jeff Wernick of Second Call Defense. He has given me permission to reprint it here. I feel it is vital information that can protect you in the future, but I hope that you never need it. Education is power.

5th Amendment Update: Why silence is no longer golden by Sean Maloney, Esq.

Nearly 70 years ago, Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote in Watts v. Indiana: “[A]ny lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances. “I  have shared Justice Jackson’s wisdom over the course of my legal career with anyone who would listen. As a Criminal Defense Attorney, I consider Justice Jackson’s statement to be the single most important advice given.  Now, after the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Salinas v. Texas, this once-trustworthy advice could be equivalent to malpractice. Protecting your rights is no longer as simple as just shutting up.

Let me explain why.

The 2 Kinds of Police Interrogation You might think an interrogation is an interrogation. But in reality, there are two kinds:

A Custodial interrogation is an interrogation of a person in custody who is reasonably suspected of being directly involved in or responsible for an offense. The person being interrogated is not free to leave police custody. Once a person is in police custody, the suspect must be read his Miranda rights if the police want to question him and to use the answers as evidence at trial.

Non Custodial Interrogation (also called an interview) – A non custodial interrogation is the gathering of information by police from a person that is not yet officially considered a suspect for the offense being investigated. An interviewee is not in police custody and is free to leave at any time. A non custodial interview does not require the police to read the suspect his Miranda rights in order to use statements as evidence at trial. In other words, the police will warn you about your rights when you’re in custody, and you have to specifically wave your rights before they can use your statements against you.

However, if you’re not officially in custody, they can just start asking you questions with no warning and anything you say can still be used against you. The problem is, how do you know whether you’re involved in a custodial or noncustodial interrogation?

When you’ve just shot someone and a police officer is asking you questions, even  friendly questions can seem like an official custodial interrogation. As if this isn’t bad enough, if you’re on the wrong side of an interrogation, now the Salinas ruling confirms that not only are police officers NOT required to give you a Miranda warning for a non custodial interrogation, just standing there and remaining silent without specifically invoking your 5th Amendment right in a non custodial interrogation can be used against you. The whole purpose of the Miranda law was to protect you from incriminating yourself. But now the burden of protecting your rights has shifted from the police to YOU. You are expected to know that you have a right against self-incrimination, and unless you specifically and clearly invoke this right, anything you say or do not say, including your mannerisms at the time you stop talking, can be used against you!

As the United States Supreme Court stated, “Before [we can] rely on the incrimination … [we are] required to [verbally] invoke it” at the time we exercise it.  You’re probably familiar with custodial interrogations. You see them in TV crime dramas all the time. And because an officer gives you a Miranda warning, it’s very clear what’s going on.

But to make sure you know what a non custodial interview is like, let’s imagine I have just shot someone in self defense. Here’s police with  Sean, do you mind if we ask you a few questions? Could  you meet us at the station to help us Sean, could you tell us about what happened last night at the party across the street?  Or the police officer might be a little more forceful and use pressure to get Sean talking: “Sean, as part of my investigation, I am going to ask you some questions to find out the truth about what just happened. You want to be truthful with me don’t you? Now, I want to make clear, if you refuse to answer my questions, at trial the prosecutor will be able to stand in front of the jury and tell them ‘an innocent man would have answered my questions, but you refused.’ So I recommend that you cooperate and answer my questions.

“This puts you in a very difficult situation. You would have to be a Fifth Amendment expert to understand whether you’re in a custodial or non custodial interrogation, or that you are
not required to say anything. And you have to possess the willpower and composure (in what may be the most stressful moment of your life) to refuse to answer a police officer’s questions.

How to End a Police Interrogation Technically, how you end a police interrogation depends on which kind of interrogation it is.

A Non custodial interrogation, such as the example above, can be ended by simply walking away.

A Custodial interrogation can be ended with a clear request for an attorney or a clear request to remain silent. HOWEVER, if you’ve been involved in a self defense shooting, this is not the time for technicalities and fine points of law. Given that even experts might not agree on whether you’re facing a custodial or non custodial interrogation, and given the recent Salinas ruling, you should immediately and expressly invoke your right against self-incrimination if law enforcement tries to question you. This isn’t a game of words, so there’s no formula for what you have to say. Anything you say that expressly invokes your constitutional right against self-incrimination will work, examples:

” I invoke my Constitutional Right to remain silent Detective”.

“I invoke my 5th Amendment, I refuse to answer any questions and exercise my constitutional right to remain silent”.

“I assure you that I am willing to cooperate, but not until I have had time to compose myself and meet with my  attorney”.

“I evoke my constitutional rights to remain silent.  I do not consent to any warrantless searches”.

Don’t concern yourself with what kind of interrogation you’re in. Don’t worry about whether Salinas applies in your particular situation. Just invoke your 5th Amendment right
immediately, verbally, and clearly.

I REPEAT:
If you are being questioned by police in a post shooting situation, no matter how friendly or hostile it may seem, invoke your 5th Amendment Constitutional right against
self-incrimination. If you do, the prosecutor cannot use your statements against you and cannot argue that “an innocent person would talk,” when you refuse to.

Consider a Second Call Defense protection program that will provide the necessary legal and financial resources right away.   After you call 911, your second call is to the 24/7 emergency Second Call Defense hotline.

Even before the police arrive, RKBA defense lawyers advise you how to respond.  If necessary, they can even represent you and talk to the police when they get there.   Please review all
the legal and financial benefits available to members of Second Call Defense.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: 
http://www.secondcalldefense.org

Reprinted with permission.

In my opinion, I would just ask the police up front, is this a custodial or non custodial interrogation? Handcuffs could be a ‘clue’ if it is custodial.

Mark Shean

www.mafirearmsafety.com

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

 
 

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’, of which not one will deter a criminal from committing a crime(s).

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 and others, 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

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

 

 

 

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.

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

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