Massachusetts Moves Step Closer to Confiscating Private Firearms

Massachusetts Legislature ^ | 11/26/05

[pabianice]

In November, the Massachusetts House of Representatives moved favorably from committee H. 2125, which brings the state one step closer to its goal of the confiscation of privately owned firearms.

Under this bill, all private owners of handguns would have to register each handgun with the police and have a separate $ 250,000 liability insurance policy on each handgun or have that handgun confiscated (insurance professionals: care to estimate the cost of such a policy to the holder?). Each such insurance policy must cover the potential theft and unlawful use of the gun. If the policy is inadequate to cover any subsequent court judgment against the lawful gunowner, he will be thrown in jail for five years for each offense. In cases where a finding of fact and guilt is to be made, one member of any such committee must be a member of Stop Handgun Violence, Inc.

There's more. Anyone who sells someone more than one gun a month shall be imprisoned for up to life. However, this law will not apply to anyone under the age of 18.

Most disgustingly, this bill is being crammed through the Legislature under Homeland Security measures.

[pabianice]

I have cointacted bill sponsor STATE REPRESENTATIVE TIMOTHY J. TOOMEY, JR. I await his reply.

Room 166 District Office

State House 550 Cambridge St

Boston, MA 02133 Cambridge, MA 02141

Telephone: (617) 722-2692 617-491-1846

Affiliation: Democrat

[neodad]

Affiliation: Democrat

I'm shocked!

[beltfed308]

What a load of crap! What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand. The frog boils slowly.

[Rakkasan1]

guess he put the "ass" back in Mass. ,too.

[04-Bravo]

Isn't this the same type of governmental intrusion that led to some problems in Massachusetts in 1775?

[beltfed308]

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

[Semper Paratus]

This sounds like a perfect 2nd Amendment test case if it goes through and SCOTUS has the stones to review it.

[beltfed308]

A rally at Concord would be most fitting.

[freedumb2003]

Just don't follow the law, and urge all of your friends not to.

NO!!

File an injunction and follow it up to SCOTUS (where we will win).

But stash your weaponry in nearby states if it looks bad.

If we practice civil disobedience then the Left will do the same and there is no law at all.

[rottndog]

It's hard to believe how stupid Democrats are. Time and again they get royally thumped at the polls when they push gun control.

Therefore, my response to Mr. Toomey is to say more power to ya!

[Mark was here]

I wonder how many in LEO would have no problem enforcing such a law?

I suppose many would not risk their pension.

[ChefKeith]

Geez, just move out of that 'rathole state and come to Texas.

< / total disgust >

[FreedomFarmer]

There IS a constitutional solution for governmental tyranny.
Somewhere between the 1st and 3rd ammendment, as I recall.

[Grut]

Most disgustingly, this bill is being crammed through the Legislature under Homeland Security measures.

Why disgusting? What did you think 'homeland security' was about, if not government power?

[freedumb2003]

Think about it, if we all stopped paying taxes, the government would have to find other means of revenue.

But it won't happen, as much as some would like it to.

Politics is the at if the possible. Defying laws just because you don't like them leads to anarchy at best.

We have a system in place to handle this -- use it.

[rottndog]

Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Yep, it seems pretty cut and dried to me. Hasn't SCOTUS already ruled that you cannot require a license or fee for the exercise of a protected constitutional right?

[beltfed308]

I don't see the customary exemption for police and military written in this bill.

[carenot]

Good idea, William.

But almost no one would be brave enough to do it.