If you live in Massachusetts and this new law is not the straw that breaks YOUR back and wakes you up to leave, no flee, the new satellite state of COMMIESHUCETTS, then you comrade, deserve what you get. This is like living under Islam and sharia law but worse as the means to defend your family, yourself, has been totally stripped away from you by the regime that thinks it knows what is best for me, you and of course what else, the children. It is ALWAYS for the children.
Myself and many others will not feel anything for you. How many warnings do you, I , we need to realize that these gun grabbing pinkos, red diaper babies, stooges of the new wave of progressive, regressive reform, education, and social warfare want to take every gun away from us. I mean EVERY gun.
Here in the hinterlands of the high desert, in the burg where I reside, I just found out that it is now illegal to discharge 'ANY' gun within the city limits. So I did a bit of checking the
have just about covered any 'type' of gun, to the point of it being absurd but not in any way shape or form funny. Here locally, 'gun' includes pellet, BB, Nerf, air soft, and anything that RESEMBLES a gun even it it shoots popcorn, Styrofoam, cardboard, little pieces of potato, water pistols or soakers, cap, pop guns, dart guns, the list was quite extensive.
What the gun hating liberals have done in Massachusetts is all but removed your second amendment rights. What is really sad about this is that the 'pro-gun ' group
actually is calling this bill a 'win' and that we should all relax and go back to sleep because the original bill was much worse than this one passed. Many in Law enforcement plan to use the new bill to REVOKE EXISTING Firearms Owner ID cards or FOIDs. I hope the bill is challenged and overturned but considering this is in Massachusetts, I have serious doubts.
The
gun law that emerged from the conference committee in Massachusetts has
the state’s anti-gun politicians, mostly but not all Democrats,
thrilled; it makes the right to have any gun at all, including a
single-shot shotgun,
subject to police discretion.
The law erases, or, pending court action we might say
attempts to
erase, the 2nd Amendment from the rights of subjects of and visitors to
the Bay State and converts them into a privilege bestowed, or not, by a
police official; although the cop must seek a rubber stamp from a
Massachusetts court to deny the right. This was not a near-run thing:
the vote was extremely lopsided, 122-29 in the state House and 37-3 in
the state Senate.
A denied person can appeal — to an anti-gun Massachusetts judge.
Already, police oathbreakers throughout the Bay State are high-fiving
over their new
authoritah. Police already had unfettered
discretion over hand guns and semi-automatic centerfire rifles, the
possession of which requires a pistol permit under the state’s byzantine
gun laws.
Despite the liberal dream regime of the nation’s strictest gun
control; lax, idle policing; suspect-friendly and victim-hostile courts;
and, not least, short sentences in “program”-rich prisons, the state
has a great deal of gang activity and violent crime, far more per capita
than other New England states. For some ironic reason some of the most
liberal conurbations are foremost in the crime statistics, and the very
leading cities are the ones where the police exercise their permit
discretion most narrowly, for some counterintuitive reason (if you’re a
newspaper reporter).
All of the state’s liberal, anti-gun papers have editorialized in favor of the ban. The
Boston Globe (which favored an even stricter version that did not pass). The
Boston Herald.
The Worcester Telegram (which
sounded almost pro-gun, praising this anti-gun bill). The Springfield
Republican-American (theirs does not seem to be on line). The
Quincy Patriot-Ledger and Metro-West Daily News.
The Hampshire Gazette,
from the Sapphic mecca of Northampton. The Lowell Sun was a rare
exception among the top 10 ABC circulation papers in the state; it
didn’t comment on this bill but has previously called for control of “
politicians, not gun owners.”
Republicans are as useless as Democrats in the Bay State, but the Democrats can get
way out there. One candidate for Attorney General, Warren Tolman, called for a
sweeping ban on all handguns until “smart gun” technology is developed, then backed off to “new guns.” His primary opponent, Maura Healey,
continues to insist she’s to the hard, totalitarian left of Tolman on the issue.
The weak in-state gun rights group, the Gun Owners’ Action League,
accepted the law as an appeasement measure, an important milestone in GOAL’s slide to irrelevance. GOAL’s point was that the
original draft
language was even worse, so this bill was a win, and MA subjects gain a
right to have their denial heard by a judge, and — whoopie-do — won’t
need the new may-issue FID Card for
pepper spray. Clearly, their chains rest lightly upon their shoulders, and their manacles are but a sign of how much their Master values them.
Boston Police Chief Evans celebrated the law, and intends to use it
to deny long gun licenses (“Firearms Owner ID Cards”) and gun
registration to all but the police and those connected to organized
crime — in Boston, two sets with a big intersection. He also plans to
“review” existing FOIDs, with a view to revoking most of them.
How’s the law going to work for Evans? Well, first let’s take a look
at his department’s performance on homicides: poor. Over the last ten
years, Evans’s record is to
leave more than half of homicides cold cases, unsolved). Evans appears unconcerned about his department’s worse-than-this-year’s-Red-Sox record, but a
series of exposés of the underperforming homicide unit
in the Boston Herald seem to have stirred Marty Walsh, a mayor of the
public employees’ unions more than a mayor of the murder victims, to
discuss, however reluctantly, taking action.
A Herald special report this week found that more than
half of the city’s 628 homicides over the 10-year span remain unsolved
and that murder clearance rates are marked by disparities in
everything
from neighborhood to race of the victim. Black males, for example, were
10 times more likely to be murdered than white males — but their
killers were caught at a 38 percent rate compared with a 79 percent rate
for whites.
They don’t even aim very high: their
target is a 50%
clearance rate (the case is cleared if a suspect is identified, even if
he is not arrested, not tried, or acquitted). They’ve only hit that
target two years running once, and barely, former chief Ed Davis
told the Herald.
On the plus side, if they go as far as indictment, they almost always
win a conviction (90+%), so they seem to be holding cases for strong and
convincing evidence, which is a factor in the low closure rate (most
big cities are over 60%, so Boston’s a
lot worse than its peers). Here’s the whole Herald series:
Justice on Hold:
Since we didn’t have the ambition to sieve through the 628 murders
over 10 years, 336 of which are now, or are becoming, cold cases, we
took a quick spin through the 29 murders Boston has experienced in 2014.
A handful of them were with knives, so those are unlikely to be
affected by Evans’s anti-legal-gun-owner push. Given Evans’s low
prioritization of actual
crime fighting as opposed to
gun-owner fighting,
a significant number remain, as you might expect, unsolved. Of the
solved cases, the amount committed by registered, licensed gun owners,
or any legal gun owners, appears to be …
zero. Committed with long guns?
Zero. Committed by activists with GOAL or the NRA, Evans’s and Walsh’s favorite whipping boys?
Zero. Committed by gang members, felons, teens and other Federally prohibited persons — just about all of ‘em.
Likely effect of Evans’s top “crime-fighting” priority: zero.
Maybe his priority is not crime fighting.
