MA: MIDEAST FIREARMS SAFETY ACT (Session Ended)

[Badger]

I see what you intended to do now, but the way I interpreted this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

was that you meant "In order to be considered a firearm, the firearm cannot be loaded or operable".  I think we need to change the wording, otherwise it has the opposite effect of your intent.

I'll compromise on the shotguns; however, I will not budge on limiting the felons.  We can use a different word than "violent," but the way it's written now is not acceptable to me.

In terms of the wording of "firearm" I see your point.  As far as re-wording, what do you suggest?

As far as the felon portion, I respectfully disagree and will also not budge.

From the peanut gallery:

Maybe you could change "must" to "need"?

I don't see how that makes sense.

Hm?

i.    “Firearm” means any weapon that discharges a projectile by means of gunpowder.  The firearm need not be loaded or operable to be considered a firearm under this statute.

I'm not sure how this changes anything besides "must" makes it a requirement and "need" seems to be lenient.

As Inks said, the use of "must" could easily be interpreted as saying that ONLY unloaded firearms are under consideration for this bill. In this case, "need not" means "not necessarily," so even UNLOADED guns are a part of this bill.

Wouldn't it make more sense to change the language entirely then instead of debating on what the language means? I personally think "does not" would be more clear, but I see the point.

Wow, I can't believe I missed all this cool debate.

FWIW: Ogis is absolutely right. His suggested change of language needs to be implemented otherwise this bill ONLY applies to unloaded weapons, whereas a convicted violent felon in possession of a loaded firearm could NOT be prosecuted. No, that makes no sense at all but, yes, that's exactly what the current language would do.

[Badger]

I am going to introduce the following amendment

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Section 6 shall be repealed.

What possible reason is there for this loophole? As Junkie quite correctly pointed out this is to ban sawed off shotguns and the like which have NO legitimate sportsman/self-defense/or other conceivable law abiding use. The sole use of such weapons is to make them concealable for commission of crimes.

If the sponsor of this amendment can find a link to any shotgun or rifle with a barrel length under 16 inches I'll support removing, or at least weakening this restriction. Until then this proposal should be renamed "The Arming the Crips and Bloods Amendment".

Seriously, I support the 2nd Amendment wholeheartedly, but short of some ultra-extremist interpretation that wouldn't prohibit any type of firearm to even violent felons (which obviously the author doesn't adhere to), what possible reason would even a card-carrying lifetime NRA member have to oppose this prohibition?

[Badger]

And finally....

I may've missed the boat on the whole letting convicted felons carry firearms amendment process, but may I still suggest another amendment that prohibits all other felons not previously listed from possessing firearms for a period of, say, 10 years after termination of sentence so long as they receive no additional felony conviction? I can't explain it any better than Junkie did. It's nice people are so sympathetic to white collar criminals and the like, but convicted felons are dishonest people who have rightly forfeited at least temporary trust to carry a firearm in the community.

To paraphrase Junkie, today's check kiter or credit card thief is all too often tomorrow's armed robber or drug dealer.

[Badger]

And finally....

I may've missed the boat on the whole letting convicted felons carry firearms amendment process, but may I still suggest another amendment that prohibits all other felons not previously listed from possessing firearms for a period of, say, 10 years after termination of sentence so long as they receive no additional felony conviction? I can't explain it any better than Junkie did. It's nice people are so sympathetic to white collar criminals and the like, but convicted felons are dishonest people who have rightly forfeited at least temporary trust to carry a firearm in the community.

To paraphrase Junkie, today's check kiter or credit card thief is all too often tomorrow's armed robber or drug dealer.

It makes no sense to strip someone from all their rights when they violate one thing unrelated. They still should be punished fully up to the law, and rightfully untrusted, but there is no reason to strip them of the right to carry a concealed weapon besides someone thinking they are untrustworthy.

Not so much "thinking" they're untrustworthy as the fact it was admitted to or proven beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Still, you don't think even a limited time period of prohibition is appropriate? Or not even limiting it to persons with a single felony conviction? Surely, A-Bob, you'd agree that someone who picks up a second felony conviction, even with neither being violent, car theft, burglary, or drug related, has pretty much passed the rubicon to be a likely career criminal?

(Heh, heh "rubicon". Get it? I slay me.... )

[Badger]

We're talking about recidivist felons here, A-Bob, not repeat speeders or shoplifters. If one has been convicted of more than one felony we are talking about a person who doesn't give a damn about the law and community, and accordingly has forfeited their right to be entrusted with a gun.

Trying to limit this scenario to a repeat embezzler or the like is grossly unrealistic. At this point one is talking about an individual who almost surely consorts with criminals, has chemical dependency issues (why do you think they keep stealing after getting caught and convicted once? There's usually two answers: gambling or drugs, and 90% of the time its the latter), and is a violent crime waiting to happen over a deal gone bad.

One can forfeit all their constitutional rights by a felony conviction, let alone repeat convictions. Surely gun rights should be the first of rights forfeited by a repeat felon, not the last?

[Badger]

Well it is obvious neither of us will move. I understand your concern, however I still believe that these people who did not commit violent crimes should be given a second chance.

Or third chance? Or fourth? Or....?

[Badger]

Well it is obvious neither of us will move. I understand your concern, however I still believe that these people who did not commit violent crimes should be given a second chance.

Or third chance? Or fourth? Or....?

obviously by that time they will have amounted to a considerable amount of their life in jail. I'm also somewhat surprised a liberal favors harsh punishment over trying to reform people and get their lives back on track (excluding these violent criminals in this case). People make mistakes, nobody is perfect. And I especially don't think someone that commits a nonviolent felony once should be stripped of their Constitutional rights immediately

This has nothing to do wit reform vs. punishment. A person can do their time and still be restricted from gun ownership for the protection of the community. Especially repeat felons. Shouldn't they have to undergo a period of law abiding citizenship before exercising that right, particularly when it is a right that threatens others from their criminal behavior?

I'm surprised to see you as a conservative being soft on crime. But then as an ACLU member once said, if conservatives cared about the rest of the Bill of Rights as much as the 2nd Amendment, we'd be out of a job.