MA Governor following NY's Lead

" What jumped out in News reports was the requirement to obtain liability insurance prior to renewing your LTC or before you can get a new LTC. The insurance is in case your firearm is lost or stolen and used in a crime. Of course the insurance company will want a list of all your firearms and you will have to constantly update the list to be covered. Will the insurance companies make the list available to the government?"

Sounds to me like it opens the door for a LTC holder to be sued if their firearm is stolen and used in a crime. Why go after the criminal when you can go after a legal gun owner who was a victim of a break-in.

Hope Maine does not get that liberal.

Bob
 
Typical MASS nonsense. We already have A&B by means of a dangerous weapon plus hundreds of gun laws, (signed by Gov. Romney,) which nobody can understand. We have seminars and day long training for LEOs to try and clarify the existing gun laws. We have contradicting gun laws. Trust me everything that can be covered is already covered. Did you know the MA State Police are not authorized to carry an off duty gun anywhere in the Commonwealth. Policy & Procedure 101. Before you enter the State Police Academy you must surrender your license to carry a firearm. Nope, there is no need for a Trooper to carry anything but his issued full size duty gun. Rubbish!
 
I can understand why Mass cops are mad. The NY law applies to the police as well as the way the law we written there is no exception added for police.
 
Mr.Scott said:
I can understand why Mass cops are mad. The NY law applies to the police as well as the way the law we written there is no exception added for police.
Click to expand...
So NY wants to fix their law to provide an exception for LEOs ... and retired LEOs.

Why should a retired LEO be entitled to any more ammo than any other private citizen? His life isn't worth any more (or less) than mine, and his wife's life isn't worth any more (or less) than my wife's.

They don't think cops ever go off the deep end? A few years ago, right between NY and MA, a retired Connecticut state trooper ambushed his soon-to-be wife and her attorney in the parking garage of the courthouse. He killed his wife, seriously wounded the attorney, and then (with typical assassin bravado) shot himself.

http://travel.nytimes.com/2005/06/16/nyregion/16shoot.html?_r=0

Nope, no need to worry about police officers having all that firepower.
 
So NY wants to fix their law to provide an exception for LEOs ... and retired LEOs.


THIS is what the firearms community ought to leverage as their fight in NY.

It would be such poetic justice to see them squirm at the unintended consequences.


Willie

.
 
These stricter gun laws are so stupid. Any of ya'll notice that the places with the strictest gun laws are also the places with the highest crime rates. Granted, these are very large cities but stats are stats. The citizens of these cities are sitting ducks for the criminals.
 
Which is why once I retired from the state police I voted with my feet and never looked back. You can talk & write letters till your hand falls off & you will NEVER change the way they think
 
Excellent point, bigfig. I am in favor of stricter gun laws in the northeastern states and CA. That way the criminal element would tend to migrate in that direction and leave my area. Just kidding, I don't want to throw any of my fellow Americans "under the bus". Well, maybe a few, but I won't go into that as it gets too political. Back to the point, how is gun control in Chicago curbing gun violence or crime in general? I guess I am just not smart enough. Maybe that is why I am not in public office.
 
Umm...its not. Has nothing to do with it.

Crime and murder in NY went down when Juliannie cracked down HARD on gangs and thugs a few years back. Chicago under Daily was too soft to put that pressure on the bad guys.

Result = crime still high in Chicago because they refuse to be hard on the really bad illegal gun toting criminals.

Although i just read that Rhom is introducing some new laws that increase jail time and fines for breaking the hand gun laws. That might acutally work, because if a little slap and time is all you get for toting around an illegal registered 30 round glock, then they are going to still do it time after time.

It's not that hard to be better about all of this, it's just that Politics gets in the way!
 
The insurance law is a great idea. That way any ex boyfriend/stalker/husband can be assured that his down on her luck/unemployed ex woman will not be able to afford a gun permit. Should work out well to curb violence. :rolleyes:
Also, those older people on fixed incomes won't pose such a threat to burglars. ;)
 
I don't get the reasoning behind publishing gun owners names and addresses. It is like they are saying we are as a bad as a sex offender or something. Actually I don't get the reasoning behind any of it. Very afraid for the future.
 
The US is in dept up to it's eye balls to China. China is using this as leverage and telling Obama to dis-arm it's public. The big question is , why does China want the US public disarmed? It will be done in small steps. Obama has 4 years to start the process.
 
China is using this as leverage and telling Obama to dis-arm it's public. The big question is , why does China want the US public disarmed? It will be done in small steps.
Click to expand...
Do you have evidence for any of this?
 
Funny, first it was 10 rounds per magazine now it's the magical seven. OK, why and where did they choose 10 and now seven is all the rage. Oh, yeah, because the ultimate goal is ZERO.
 
The US is in dept up to it's eye balls to China. China is using this as leverage and telling Obama to dis-arm it's public. The big question is , why does China want the US public disarmed? It will be done in small steps. Obama has 4 years to start the process.

Wow...just...wow...I don't even know where to begin with this one...
 
MA Gov following NY

I see the reasoning behind the 10 round or 7 round limit in semi autos. Its simple! It won't help anything, so in a year or two, they will come back and say, the ban has not worked as good as we hoped so we are going to ban ALL semi-autos regardless of how many bullets they hold. After that, in a year or two, they will revisit the laws and say, the ban on semi-autos has not worked as good as we hope, so we are going to ban all handguns, pump rifles and shot guns. In a few years after that, they will come back and say, the ban on hand guns, pump rifles and shot guns has not worked as good as we hoped so we are going to ban.... This is how they are going to operate. If we open the door for this new round of gun bans, we are all down the tubes as a free nation.
 
It won't help anything, so in a year or two, they will come back and say, the ban has not worked as good as we hoped so we are going to ban ALL semi-autos regardless of how many bullets they hold.
Click to expand...
...which will run head-on into the Heller decision. I have a sneaky suspicion they're trying to bait the Supreme Court on this.
 
...which will run head-on into the Heller decision. I have a sneaky suspicion they're trying to bait the Supreme Court on this.
Click to expand...

Taking it a step farther.... my bet is that they are hoping for a "different" Supreme Court by the time a case makes its way up there....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top