Good news or Bad for Mass gun owners? (Adams, Washington: schools, inspections)

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

In other states it is actually too easy to buy a gun where some all that is needed is a drivers license, paperwork, a quick background check and off you go with your new gun.

There's actually a few regs that I'm surprised MA hasn't addressed despite touting it's laws as toughest in the nation. I thought years ago the 4 FTF transfers per year would go away. Of course I understand the onus is on the seller to make sure their transaction is good considering if something were to happen they would get a knock on the door from the PD.


I'm also surprised MA, and the Fed in general, hasn't addressed the laws surrounding individual manufacturing and 80% receivers in general. This one I'm really surprised at considering it's one that could really be abused.

[Pilot1]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Cars = Main purpose of, and when used correctly, transportation.
Guns = Main purpose of, and when used correctly, killing.


People trying to link the two are so freaking weak.

Why does the "purpose" of something matter how it is used? Vehicles are used for mass murder on a regular basis. Also, many guns are designed, made and used specifically for target shooting and sporting purposes like Sporting Clays, Trap, Skeet, Bullseye competition, IDPA, USPA, Olympic style sports shooting, etc. When used correctly, they do not kill, but give joy to millions in sport, and competition.

The gun does not have will, nor intent, it is merely a tool. Respect my RIGHT to own, and carry a firearm, and I will respect your PRIVILEGE to drive a car.

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by Pilot1

Why does the purpose of something matter how it is used. Vehicles are used for mass murder on a regular basis. Also, many guns are designed, made and used specifically for target shooting and sporting purposes like Sporting Clays, Trap, Skeet, Bullseye completion, IDPA, USPA, Olympic style sports shooting, etc. When used correctly, they do not kill, but give joy to millions in sport, and competition.

The gun does not have will, nor intent, it is merely a tool. Respect my RIGHT to own, and carry a firearm, and I will respect your PRIVILEGE to drive a car.

Damn! You beat me to it.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by timberline742

Cars = Main purpose of, and when used correctly, transportation.
Guns = Main purpose of, and when used correctly, killing.


People trying to link the two are so freaking weak.

That was my point, exactly. And substitute other devices (e.g. fertilizer, pressure cookers, knives, ropes,...) for cars to extend the point.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by Pilot1

The gun does not have will, nor intent, it is merely a tool. Respect my RIGHT to own, and carry a firearm, and I will respect your PRIVILEGE to drive a car.

Legally speaking, every (adult) American has the freedom/right to apply for a license, and if qualified and responsible, the privilege to operate a vehicle on public roads. I'd argue, given the current legal interpretations of the 2a, both are effectively 'privileged rights' in the fact that there are limits and no guarantees on said limits - just the fundamental rights of access.

[Pilot1]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

Legally speaking, every (adult) American has the freedom/right to apply for a license, and if qualified and responsible, the privilege to operate a vehicle on public roads. I'd argue, given the current legal interpretations of the 2a, both are effectively 'privileged rights' in the fact that there are limits and no guarantees on said limits - just the fundamental rights of access.

I understand your argument. In effect, government has rendered it to be like a privilege. However, only one is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and I would contend that MOST of the restrictions on the Second Amendment, especially by states are illegal, and unconstitutional. Gun ownership, and use is NOT a state's rights issue, and I am a huge proponent of states rights in general, except when they agreed to the Constitution when they became states.

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by Shrewsburried

Your argument suffers from a degree cognitive dissonance. If we had national or state registered licensing and background checks (as MA does), it would not suddenly offer you reciprocity with a firearm. You know - state's rights and such. I currently cannot roll through a stop sign in MA (legally) or hold a cellphone in NH (legally) because the state's define the traffic laws; however, insurers and civil engineers have more less forced consistency which causes citizens to lose sight of this fact.

Additionally, comparing death rates of driving, an utility used daily by some 200+ million Americans which is vital to the U.S. economy given current infrastructure, to the death rates from firearms wreaks of 'whataboutism'. It's non-equivalent and suspect you know this.

Cognitive dissonance? Your entire post makes no sense whatsoever? I can see my post went way over your head. I was responding to post #71 who felt that gun owners should be subject to the "same minimum licensing & registration requirements that car owners/drivers have to do." That being the case then gun owners should be able to carry their guns anywhere throughout the United States. Just as drivers are free to drive their vehicles anywhere throughout the United States. Why is that so hard to understand? I don't think there's anywhere in the United States where you can just (legally) roll through a stop sign?

By your sound reasoning then Massachusetts or any other state could prohibit anyone with an out of state drivers license from driving on their roads. "You know - state's rights and such."

Your chances of getting killed or injured in a motor vehicle accident are far greater than getting accidentally shot by someone who is LAWFULLY carrying a gun. It's non-equivalent and suspect you know this.

[scorpio516]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

More details.
"Raul Devers, 22, of Springfield, pleaded not guilty in Springfield District Court on March 26 to carrying a loaded firearm without a license, possession of a high-capacity feeding device, possession of oxycodone and a motor vehicle lights violation."

I recently started to follow Worcester PD twitter. Almost everything they post tacks on gun charges - possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, and throw a couple unlicensed gun charges on there - traffic stop, find a loaded unlicensed gun - etc.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Pilot1

Why does the "purpose" of something matter how it is used? Vehicles are used for mass murder on a regular basis. Also, many guns are designed, made and used specifically for target shooting and sporting purposes like Sporting Clays, Trap, Skeet, Bullseye competition, IDPA, USPA, Olympic style sports shooting, etc. When used correctly, they do not kill, but give joy to millions in sport, and competition.

The gun does not have will, nor intent, it is merely a tool. Respect my RIGHT to own, and carry a firearm, and I will respect your PRIVILEGE to drive a car.

Purpose and intent mean everything. Everything. Is an atomic bomb just a "tool"? No, its a weapon of war. Is sarin gas just a "tool"? No, of course note. Neither are large capacity magazines. Not at all the same of an airplane that can also be used to kill. Yes, it matters, a lot.


And please, I've shot. I've hunted quail (freaking delicious), pheasant, done trap shooting. No one is talking about taking a 16 gauge shotgun away, or a biathlon rifle. Save the slippery slope BS for someone else.


The 2nd amendment includes "well regulated" as part of it, so our forefathers were fine with regulations, and amendments aren't limitless. We've limited felons having them after there sentences are served, and we have limits on most amendments, as in you can't yell "fire" in an auditorium.


And I don't want or need your respect. At all.

[Shrewsburried]

Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker

Cognitive dissonance? Your entire post makes no sense whatsoever? I can see my post went way over your head. I was responding to post #71 who felt that gun owners should be subject to the "same minimum licensing & registration requirements that car owners/drivers have to do." That being the case then gun owners should be able to carry their guns anywhere throughout the United States. Just as drivers are free to drive their vehicles anywhere throughout the United States. Why is that so hard to understand? I don't think there's anywhere in the United States where you can just (legally) roll through a stop sign?

It makes perfect sense. MA does not require you to forfeit ownership when you cross state lines; however, it can and does restrict your usage - no different than driving, despite the similarities of traffic laws between states. This does not violate your 'rights' according to the current interpretations of the 2a.

Originally Posted by Ex New Yorker

By your sound reasoning then Massachusetts or any other state could prohibit anyone with an out of state drivers license from driving on their roads. "You know - state's rights and such."

They can and do. 18 year old CDL license holder? Better keep it intrastate. 14 year old permit holder from Wyoming? Better not cross into Oregon.

You're conflating standardization and law.