MA Firearm Safety

Archive for the ‘Blog’ Category

Remember, many politicians here in the USA can not ‘accept’ or ‘tolerate’ lawful ownership of firearms by the law abiding in America, it is as if they are trying to make everyone helpless, like in France, etc. to make it easy for those bent on killing all so-called ‘infidels’.

We are told not to judge All Muslims based on the actions of a few Muslim lunatic’s, but we are Encouraged to judge ALL gun owners based on the actions of a few lunatic’s the media and politicians claim,…………Can you say AGENDA? I know that you can…..

You have to pause and wonder, JUST WHO’S SIDE ARE THESE JACK ASS’ES ON??!! AND JUST WHO DO THEY REALLY REPRESENT??? Back off your attacks of our Second Amendment! Crime happens while the police are somewhere else………..Again, back off your attacks on our Second Amendment!

Some may not want to own a firearm, that is their right, but they have no right to say that others can not own them just because they don’t want to, firearms are the Only consumer product specifically protected in our Constitution under the Second Amendment. As an American citizen, everyone should support the right of all American citizens to exercise any of their Constitutional or God given rights, not cherry pick only the ones that they like. Are the oath breaking  political traitors paying attention?

Those bent on destroying our Second Amendment rights through fees, licenses or permits should also have to apply for a license and pay a fee before they can open their mouth to exercise their First Amendment rights, how would that be taken by these pinheads? Why should we need to pay to exercise a right?!

“But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. …
For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals.
Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.” Jeff Snyder

Mark Shean

Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and tried to light it?

Did you know his trial is over?

Did you know he was sentenced?

Did you see/hear any of the judge’s comments on TV or Radio?

Didn’t think so.!!!

Everyone should hear what the judge had to say.

Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his ‘allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah,’ defiantly stating, ‘I think I will not apologize for my actions,’ and told the court ‘I am at war with your country.’

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:

Judge Young: ‘Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the
Court imposes upon you.

On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the
custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutively. (That’s 80 years.)

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years again, to
be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 that’s an aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government’s recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

The Court imposes upon you an $800 special assessment. The Court
imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans.

We have been through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier, you are not—–, you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You’re no warrior. I’ve known warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said:

‘You’re no big deal. ‘

You are no big deal.

What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?

I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing? And, I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom. It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom, so that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom’s sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.

We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here.

The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.

Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America , the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That’s the flag of the United States of America . That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. And it always will.

Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down.

So, how much of this Judge’s comments did we hear on our TV sets? We need more judges like Judge Young. Please pass this around. Everyone should and needs to hear what this fine judge had to say. Powerful words that strike home, words the media did not want anyone to hear………….just who’s side is the media on?!

www.mafirearmsafety.com

1-7-2015

J. Neil Schulman is an award winning author who decided to dig deep for the true meaning of the words in the Second Amendment, to do so he found the foremost expert on the meaning of words.  Mr. Roy Copperud, he’s on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster’s Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud’s fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award.

Sounds like an expert to me.

Dear Sir:

“I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

“The text of the Second Amendment is, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

“The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State’, is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’

“I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.”

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

“I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.”

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

“In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

[Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

[Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

[Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

[Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

[Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

[Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?”

[Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.”

[Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped’, ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’ ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”

[Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”

[Schulman:] “(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.”

[Copperud:] “To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.’

[Schulman:] “As a ‘scientific control’ on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’

“My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

“(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and

“(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict ‘the right of the people to keep and read Books’ only to ‘a well-educated electorate’ — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?”

[Copperud:] “(1) Your ‘scientific control’ sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

“(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: “With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion.”

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard’s desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

About the Author J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony Burgess

Submitted 12-22-14 by Mark Shean, author of GUN SENSE, on Amazon

I recently tried to have some custom playing cards made from a company that does that service,(Zazzle). On the back of the card I wanted the picture of a 12ga. pump KSG shotgun. It apparently was abhorrent to their delicate sensibilities and they refused to process the order, calling the image ‘unsuitable’. I am sure if I had wanted a picture of a busty blond all but naked in a bikini that would have been fine with them since sex sells…. Looking into the co. I found that Zazzle is based in Redwood City California, we all know Ca. to be a political Constitutionally dysfunctional state especially in regards to our Second Amendment.

Below is the communication Zazzle sent to me;
Mr. Shean:
We would love to produce all designs submitted, however Zazzle prides itself on upholding all intellectual property rights as well as our own content guidelines and copyright policies.

In this instance, your order contained an image that was not suitable to be printed on the Bicycle Playing Cards. Bicycle has very strict guidelines on what can and can not be printed on their cards.

Your order has been cancelled in full. We apologize for any inconvenience or disappointment that you may have experienced due to this cancellation and thank you for understanding..

Not Approved
Content Notes: Design contains content that is not suitable for printing on officially licensed merchandise. For more information please visit: http://help.zazzle.com/articles/support/ar423/

Darren
Content Management Team
Zazzle Inc.
Case Number: CAS-528076-G7S4X2

Marks Note, This ‘unsuitable’ image was a 12ga. pump KSG shotgun! Firearms are the ONLY Constitutionally protected consumer product, obviously the Founding Fathers did not consider firearms ‘unsuitable’, they considered them indispensable! ZAZZLE Card Co. takes acceptation to our Second Amendment rights it would seem, this is a company that should be boycotted by Americans who do not want to be chastised for their right to own firearms.

I looked up the Bicycle Playing Card guidelines, here they are:

No text or images that infringe on any intellectual property rights including, but not limited to copyrights, trademarks and rights of privacy/publicity.
•     No text or images that contain pornography, sexual activity or sexual connotations.
•     No text or images of convicted felons and/or notorious criminals. This includes any recent or newsworthy individuals.
•     No text or images that promote Satan and/or contain satanic or demonic content.
•     No content that poorly reflects the Bicycle brand.

I see nothing about ‘Firearms’, so Zazzle just does not like them and was trying to hide behind Bicycle as their excuse. The picture was my property, as is the firearm, no infringement’s.

I have since gone to another company and submitted the exact same order with no problem, they did not even blink, your business should go to this company should you want playing cards made; www.makeplayingcards.com.

Mark Shean

12-20-2014

Mark Shean, author of GUN SENSE on Amazon, and inventor of the FTSS switch for the KSG shotgun. 

The link to this demonstration is on youtube.  http://shotgunswitch.com

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 need to fill out the E-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) and……

To read this chapter in full, and any other articles in the Gun Sense series, it is available as an Ebook and a Paperback at Amazon under:
Gun Sense Massachusetts Gun Law Information and Common Sense Firearm Safety By Mark R. Shean Sr.

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

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