Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Amicus brief in ACLU challenge to gov't data harvesting | Main | California's latest »

Massachusetts' latest

Posted by David Hardy · 18 July 2014 09:37 AM

I don't know what to file this under -- an example of where the other side wants to go, or an example of how newspaper stories are written by cut and paste of slogans that have been used and re-used for decades.

Massachusetts of course is about as restrictive as can be, but the legislature felt the need to "respond" to something by enacting something more. So it passed a bill with sundry additional restrictions, but declined one: rifle and shotgun possession requires a permit, but it's a "shall issue" one, and the legislature declined to make that "may issue."

So the cut and paste story is headlined "Massachusetts Senate approves sweeping gun bill, but strips key measure."

Here's a quote, emphasis added:

""Gun safety advocates said the change guts the bill.

John Rosenthal of the group Stop Handgun Violence, said giving police chiefs added discretion over the issuing of FID cards was the single most important aspect of the bill.

"Without it, it's not worth the paper it's written on," Rosenthal said. "Shame on the Massachusetts Senate. Sadly they voted against police chiefs and against public safety and for the special interest gun lobby and people will die as a result.""

· antigun groups ~ · media

2 Comments | Leave a comment

fwb | July 18, 2014 1:23 PM | Reply

And everyone out there can thank the US Supreme Court for their INCORRECT decision in Barron v Baltimore. That decision was another case of Marshall pulling another load out from under his black robe. If Marshall had had a brain he took it out before he decided this one. He seems to have leaned on Madison's ideas, ideas that were totally repudiated by the Congress of the time, and ignored the supremacy clause and the republican government guarantee.

Ken M | July 18, 2014 2:47 PM | Reply

The bliss-ninnies can take comfort in the fact that they removed one section of the bill, which would have allowed Massachusetts residents to possess pepper spray without first obtaining a permit. Massachusetts remains the only state in the nation that protects its people from the constant drive-by pepper spraying that plague other places.

Leave a comment