Skip to comments.Obama Supporters Move to use Massachusetts as test case for gun confiscation
Posted on 04/25/2009 4:35:52 PM PDT by pabianice
Massachusetts H 2202
o Bans ownership of any "assault weapons"
o Bans ownership of any semi-auto rifles or pistols as "machine guns;" possession/ownership of such to be punished by a minimum three years in prison
o Outlaws possession or ownership of any firearms that cannot "microstamp" cartridges
o A complete list of every handgun owned must be supplied to your licensing authority;
o $250,000 insurance policy on every handgun to cover any harm or damage that might arise from the use;
o Places a member of Stop Handgun Violence on the state's Gun Control Advisory Board;
o Requires Owners of guns to make lost or stolen reports or face heavy fines;
o Changes the mandatory training requirements for handguns to be a minimum of 20 hours long to include four hours of "practical shooting";
o Limits purchases to One handgun a month;
o Requires solenoid use-limitation devices, voice recognition devices, and automated fingerprint systems for handguns;
o Increases the penalties for multiple unlawful sales without making a dent in illegal gun trafficking.
STATE REPRESENTATIVE ANTONIO F. D. CABRAL
Room 466, State House, Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2017; Facsimile: 617-722-2813
Party Affiliation - DEMOCRAT
DISTRICT REPRESENTED: Thirteenth Bristol. - Consisting of precincts A, B, C, F and G of ward 4, all precincts of wards 5 and 6, of the city of New Bedford, in the county of Bristol.
EDUCATION: Bristol High School; Bristol Community College; University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, B.A.; Brown University (graduate studies).
ORGANIZATIONS: Our Lady of the Angels Band; Luso-American Business Association; WHALE, LTYC; Rotch-Duff House Garden Museum; Portuguese-American Federation; Friends of the Zeiterion.
PUBLIC OFFICE: Ward 5 Democratic City Committee; Mass. House (1991-Present).
Committees on which the legislator serves: House Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures, and State Assets, Chair
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE ROBERT A. DeLEO
State House District Office
Room 356 220 Beach Street, State House Revere, MA 02151 Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2500 781-289-8965; Facsimile: 617-722-2008 781-289-0582
Party Affiliation - DEMOCRAT
Comments? Yeah! “Go to h*ll!”
I just don’t understand how a constitutionally protected freedom can be licensed. Seriously. This would be similar to requiring training and a license before you could engage in free speech, wouldn’t it? So aren’t these restrictions blatantly unconstitutional? Not that that has ever stopped the libs before...
Want to see what happens when guns are taken away from the people?
Well, in Pakistan it means rule by Taliban thugs, and summary execution for adultery, as shown in this video.
No , you wont be disarming America, no matter what laws are passed by leftist dweebs. The only way you will get guns away from Americans is to pry them from their cold, dead fingers.
A license to free speech?
They’ve already thought of that. You must apply for a permit to demonstrate. Posters must be approved or they are illegal.
But as usual the LIBS take out their frustrations on the general public and put us all at risk.
Communist summbitches, IMO. This is a clear, blatant attack on the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
If it’s a trial balloon for the 0bama administration, then it should be shot out of the sky, immediately.
It’s time to take back the country.
Note to self: Don’t move to MA.
Oh, yeah. Like that place was on my short list of places to move to, let alone visit before I die. *SMIRK*
However, WI is becoming ‘MA Lite.’ *SIGH*
Well, Heller was very vague, and did not as far as I know touch on whether the Second Amendment requires “strict scrutiny.”
I suspect if this is passed, it will be before the Court fairly quickly, to determine just that point.
If the Court decides that strict scrutiny is required, anything that imposes an “undue burden” would be unconstitional. Things like microstamping would likely fall into this category.
Democrat majorities and RKBA are not compatible. They cannot coexist. Vote for one and lose the other.
One major reason is that you are one of the few people who correctly identify it as a constitutionally protected freedom. Mostly what you hear is, "My constitutional right to bear arms" or "my second amendment right." That means, of course, that the right to bear arms is not part of the natural right to life that we are endowed with by God and includes protecting that life, but rather the right to bear arms comes from the Constitution and therefore is subject to the whims of government. That erroneous thinking causes a lot of problems.
>>Comments? Yeah! Go to h*ll!<<
Sir, you are so much more polite than I would ever be. Suffice it to say, that if I wrote here my exact feelings, I would be banned for life.
So, I will only say “I REFUSE TO OBEY!”.
Confiscation of firearms must take place if the “messiah” and his D’rats are going to succeed with their agenda. Without firearm confiscation, the Obama regime will fail.
Like Charlton Heston said - “Only from my cold and dead fingers”.......
Heller has to be incorporated against Mass before it can be used against Mass.
That is the first order of business.
9th circuit has incorporated, but they only cover the west.
I have been warning about this for a while now...
Obama will seek these 4 elements in a gun bill
1. An expanded HR 45, gun owner licensing. All gun owners will have to have these licenses, even owners of facilimie weapons (AKA Airsoft and BB). Licenses will only be granted if the records of the applicant are clean (This includes misdemeanors from decades ago). Licenses will have high renewal fees ($100-300/yr). Licensees will be required to hold $1 million in liability insurance. Possession of otherwise permitted weapons (See #3) without license is a felony.
2. Ammunition accountability... All ammo will be required to be microstamped and will be taxed $1/round. All non stamped ammo will be required to be turned in or thrown away. Possession of non-marked ammo is a felony. This part of the act also bans Cop Killer bullets. Furthermore, this will require the gun to leave a microstamp of its own on the ammo. (BTW, this will also affect law enforcement and military ammunition stocks, as they will be required to have stamps of their own)
3. Expanded Assault Weapons ban This includes most all semiauto rifles, anything that can be Bump Fired, Semiauto handguns, and Semi-auto shotguns. It also includes pump-action shotguns and Sniper Rifles AKA your deer rifle. The AWB will also require people with Prebans to register their guns as Machine Guns, and that the tax stamp will go up to $10,000 per weapon. If you cant afford this, you have to turn the weapon in without compensation...
4. Expansion of the Lautenberg amendment: Removes Domestic Violence as disqualifier to gun ownership, inserts any misdemeanor as disqualifer... Anyone with a misdemeanor on their record will be prohibited from owning a firearm. This includes DUI and traffic offenses, and offenses decades ago.
Finally, all CCW permits will be voided. Also, all gun and ammo imports will be banned.
Don’t they realize....
This will mean war.
B Knotts: “If the Court decides that strict scrutiny is required, anything that imposes an undue burden would be unconstitional.”
Does strict scrutiny apply to other rights in the Bill of Rights? If so, why would the right to arms be any different? Again, I know the court can make it up as they go, but I just don’t see how a constitutionally protected right can be restricted beyond strict scrutiny. Placing all sorts of restrictions on gun ownership is not similar to allowable limits on free speech, i.e. “shouting fire in a crowded theater.”
I see you’re under the mistaken impression that the Constitutional contract between We The People and the federal oligarchy is still valid. It isn’t. The appointment of affirmative action O bow ma in disregard for the Constitutional requirement of proven eligibility has voided the contract via abrogation by the subpreme court and our elected representatives. The democraps are free to do as they please now. Be a good serf and just keep your mouth shut.
In my opinion, you’re right. But, like you said, who knows what the courts will do.
CurlyDave points out correctly that Heller has not yet been incorporated nationwide, and that would need to happen first.
It took just the AWB to bring in Bush. Does Obama want to see once more how a Rat government can become a GOP government overnight? Bill Clinton could tell him.
I think FReepers should remember this is a public board, and the owners would be required to reveal user information to the authorities in an investigation. This also happens to be a very popular board with a well known reputation for being very conservative. In other words, this is one of the first places Janet Napolitano’s minions would look.
Dispite what most Democrats say during the campaign you can always count on this: “If their mouth is moving, they are lying!”
I would be remiss if I did not give credit the few conservative Democrats who are not intoxicate by money and power bur still care about this country.
Let her come we will sit down and discuss things before she is escorted off the property. Is that not the O way “Talk”.
Confiscation of firearms must take place if the messiah and his Drats are going to succeed with their agenda. Without firearm confiscation, the Obama regime will fail.
Exactly right. They can’t complete the subjugation without it—and they know it. They are going to push this for the next 4 years every chance they get, they have no choice.
Ever heard of campaign finance reform.
Geez, I never thought I’d be happy to live in the Ninth Circus.
If that's the case, why did Clintoon win in '96? The AWB is widely credited on both sides of the aisle with giving Congress to the GOP in '94 for the first time in four decades, probably with some merit, but I don't think it caused the election of Bush. Gore was just too much of a wingnut, and Bush was not quite as bad.
Yes they realize it but they have the mistaken belief that the patriotic members of the US Armed Forces will be on their side.
1. Free speech - campaign finance reform
2 Gun rights - gun control
3. I actually wouldn’t mind having soldiers at the house, though to be fair they’ve never made me.
4. Search and Seizure - Income tax returns, IRS and Swiss bank accounts
5. Compensation - they aren’t planning to pay you for confiscated guns
That’s only the first five.
Not only do they think the military is on their side but...
Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards, said Holder, nations first black attorney general
I hope they’ll get to bring the goodies with them...
Read the freakin’ Constitution!
GOOD. STUFF IT, NAPOLITANO.
Imagine these same rules applying to voting:
o A complete list of every vote ever cast must be supplied to your licensing authority;
I am very seriously curious about just how many gun owning Americans will actually take a do or die stand and shoot any thug who attempts to take their guns away?
I am very deadly serious about this. I will willingly shoot to kill, and thus be willing to die fighting for my freedom, anybody who tries to take my guns. What percentage of the gun owners in this country are actually willing to kill and die when that day comes? Oh, and if this puts me on a list, then so be it!
H.2202, Automatic Weapons Bill or General Gun Ban?
Recently GOAL obtained a copy of H.2202 "An Act to Close the Automatic Weapon Loophole" bill. The legislation was filed by Representative Antonio Cabral of New Bedford. The bill appears to have no cosponsors. At first glance one would logically come to the conclusion that the bill has something to do with machineguns. Unfortunately, you would be wrong. It is actually a potential ban on everything other than automatic firearms.
The very first section of the bill changes the Commonwealth's definition of "Assault Weapon" by deleting the exemptions that exist for manual action guns. The proposed change also does away with an important exemption that GOAL had put into law in our 2004 reform bill (Chapter 150 of the Acts of 2004).
The exemption was Appendix A of 18 U.S.C. 922, part of the federal assault weapons ban laws that were set to expire in 2004. The Appendix contained a list of hundreds of guns that could legally never be considered as "assault weapons".
Some examples of the guns on the list are Ruger Red Label Shotgun, Perrazi Sporting Classic O/U Shotgun, Browning Citori O/U Shotgun, Remington 870 Youth Model, Ancshutz Match Rifle, Thompson/Center Contender Carbine. Knowing the federal ban was set to expire and the Massachusetts ban was not, GOAL successfully worked to permanently attach Appendix A to the Massachusetts exemptions. H.2202 proposes to do away with that exemption.
The next two sections of the bill inserts language into the license to carry law (Chapter 140, Section 131) essentially banning the purchase, renting, leasing, borrowing, possession and carrying of assault weapons.
Section four of the bill is more than a little confusing as it deals with club licenses. The language removes an exemption in the law that currently allows the removal of large capacity weapons or large capacity feeding devices from the premises (club) for the purpose of "hunting in accordance with the provisions of chapter 131."
The bill then moves to change the minimum sentencing for possession firearm (handgun), rifle or shotgun form 2 ½ years to "not less than three years." The minimum sentencing for drug and violent crimes in conjunction with gun crimes is increased from three years to a minimum of five years. It also intends to do away with the ability to serve concurrent sentences for certain crimes.
The bill clearly has nothing to do with machineguns (automatic weapons), but rather is intended to ban certain semi-automatic guns (assault weapons). Perhaps even more sinister is that by proposing to remove the crucial exemptions in the legal definition of "assault weapon" it is intentionally opening the door to label most any gun an assault weapon and thus potentially banning anything. If this is not the intention, then why remove the exemptions?
H.2202 is currently within the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security. We urge our members to contact the Committee members and ask them to oppose this blatant attempt to open the door for banning the possession of guns by lawful citizens.
H.2287 the Anti RKBA Buffet
H.2287 "An Act Relative to Firearms in the Commonwealth" is a re-file from the last legislative session. As stated in my title, it is a virtual buffet of anti RKBA legislation. Rather than taking up a lot of space with detailed explanations, I'll simply give a bullet point list of the proposals in the bill:
A complete list of every handgun owned must be supplied to your licensing authority;
· $250,000 insurance policy on every handgun to cover any harm or damage that might arise from the use;
· Place a member of Stop Handgun Violence on the state's Gun Control Advisory Board;
· Owners of guns to make lost or stolen reports or face heavy fines;
· Changing the mandatory training requirements for handguns to be a minimum of 20 hours long to include four hours of "practical shooting";
· One handgun a month;
· Solenoid use-limitation devices, voice recognition devices, automated fingerprint systems for handguns;
· Increasing the penalties for multiple unlawful sales.
Oh....they “get it” allright. The commie DemRats get it perfectly. It’s you that doesn’t get it.....apparently.
The first one started in Massachusetts back in the mid 18th century, so I suppose it would be as good a place as any to begin the second one in the early 21st.
I pray every day that I do not have to make a desiccion like that but I think I will do what I have to do if they come to my door. If I know there coming I’ll have more options though.
mtdrake: “I am very seriously curious about just how many gun owning Americans will actually take a do or die stand and shoot any thug who attempts to take their guns away?”
Excellent question. I’m a Christian, so I believe I’m supposed to obey the laws of the land. There are exceptions, like a law that would require me to violate God’s laws, but I would comply with gun control.
However, I wonder how many other folks would do or die over gun control. I suspect most Americans would either turn in their guns or hide them. If someone resisted a search, it would be their family against legions of law enforcement officers. I just don’t think that many folks would sacrifice themselves and their families in such circumstances.
There will be a revolution should confiscation ever be attempted. Count on it. There is a reason for the ammo shortage. Only half of America are Obamabots, the rest of us are old fashioned Americans who know what The Constitution says. Laws that are unConstitutional are null and void and illegal.
The Heller decision left plenty of room to restrict firearms in multiple ways. Incorporation doesn’t prohibit that. It merely states the municipalities and states cannot restrict your right to keep and bear arms. However, Heller leaves plenty of running room to say how those firearms and ammunition can be regulated.
CitizenUSA, I too consider myself a Christian. I too am concerned for my family (I do not have children), as well as everyone’s family. My question really boils down to this: How many Americans, gun owners or not, would be willing to allow their government to take away their God given and constitutionally gauranteed rights? How many Americans are willing to live under a tyranical government? I am not, not under any circumstance. I consider it my duty to fight and even die protecting our freedoms if they are taken from us. I firmly do not believe that being a Christian precludes anyone from fighting for their freedom.
First and foremost I pray that the day never comes when I will need to take this stand. Not for myself, but for my country’s sake. If and when that day does come I then pray that there will be enough Americans who will be willing to kill and die standing and fighting rather than live under tyrany.
Maybe lots of folks will decide we shouldn't wait to shoot those who come to take the guns, just actively hunt the bastards who pass the bill.
See what happens!
a few million bucks and twenty yrs later, wake me for the ruling...
on the bright side, shortly, a few million bucks will be pocket money, and might even buy a tank of gas...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.