Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 04:21 PM Aug 2014

Massachusetts lawmakers pass bill tightening state gun laws

(Reuters) - Massachusetts lawmakers on Friday tightened the state's already strict gun laws by passing a measure that gives police chiefs authority to turn down a resident's requests to buy a rifle or shotgun if they believe the person may be a danger.

House lawmakers overrode objections from gun-rights advocates in the state Senate who had opposed the measure, worrying that police chiefs could abuse the authority to deny firearms to law-abiding citizens.

"We seek not to be the safest state in the nation but strive to make our communities the safest in the world," said House Speaker Robert DeLeo, a Democrat.

The bill now goes to Governor Deval Patrick, a fellow Democrat, who supports tightening the state's gun laws.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/01/us-usa-guncontrol-massachusetts-idUSKBN0G14HD20140801
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

clffrdjk

(905 posts)
2. The governor better keep that pen warm
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 04:38 PM
Aug 2014

It won't be too long before they are writing a check to GOA or the NRA.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
3. There are a few complications you neglected to mention
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 05:49 PM
Aug 2014
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172150454

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172149363

In short, giving police chiefs the power to deny permits flies in the face of more than
one Supreme Court decision, so that bit will be (successfully) challenged in Federal court.

Undoubtedly, the gun prohibtionists will be studiously silent when that happens...
 

TIMETOCHANGE

(86 posts)
4. Alan Gura, you're next paycheck awaits bro.
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 06:05 PM
Aug 2014

This will be a four to five year fight in the courts. If there is a legit appeals process it wouldn't be too bad but I doubt there is a legit appeals process. Also police chiefs should be civilly liable for making BS calls that can't be supported by strong facts and evidence, and they should be personally liable without any support of the government to pay their legal bill. That'll help keep them honest. Not that I expect any honesty out of a Massachusetts politicians when it comes to guns.

If the police chief says no than the person should be able to petition the courts pro se and be in front of a judge within thirty days with the evidence that the police chief has against them provided to the petitioner within five days of their filing of the petition.

I'd even allow a retroactive application so long as the person was given a thirty day notice and had a chance to halt the seizure of their firearms by filing a petition. This of course won't happen. The loss of due process seems to be an acceptable collateral damage in the anti-gun folks culture war.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
7. It won't even take that long, thanks to Title 18, US Code, Section 242...
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 11:05 PM
Aug 2014

"Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law"

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/html/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap13-sec242.htm


18 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 13 - CIVIL RIGHTS
Sec. 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§242. Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both;...


Or as the FBI puts it:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.


Since the Supremes made it pretty clear in both Heller & McDonald that keeping and bearing
arms is a civil right, the first person not Federally DQ'd denied a Firearms ID Card
under this law will have an undeniable tort under Federal law- and Alan Gura can start
pricing new S-Types...
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
5. OMG, the fear! Coming in October, COLORED RIBBONS COMMEMORATING SOME TRAGEDY!!!
Fri Aug 1, 2014, 08:22 PM
Aug 2014

Meanwhile, the rest of us are talking about real change, changes that save lives AND preserve a modicum of independence.

Must be election time, eh?

derby378

(30,252 posts)
10. Transforming us from a Nation of Laws into a Nation of Because I Said So
Sat Aug 2, 2014, 03:41 PM
Aug 2014

How utterly un-American can you get?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Massachusetts lawmakers p...