The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on May 07, 2009, 08:51:39 AM
-
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/05/gov_patrick_fil.html
Governor Deval Patrick is filing legislation today to reduce gun violence that includes a provision to restore a crime-fighting tool for prosecutors that was taken away by a court ruling Monday.
The bill would allow suspects to be held without bail pending a dangerousness hearing for charges that involve illegal possession, use, or trafficking of guns, the governor's office said.
The legislation would also create a new felony of using a gun while committing a misdemeanor, limit gun purchases to one per month, and require sales of guns by private parties to be recorded by licensed gun dealers.
Public Safety and Security Secretary Kevin Burke said, "We need to send a clear message … that should you use a gun in the commission of a crime … you will be punished."
The legislation was unveiled at a news conference at a Boston housing development. Others attending included Mayor Thomas M. Menino, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, Police Commissioner Edward Davis, and community leaders.
The state Supreme Judicial Court ruled Monday that illegal gun possession is a "passive and victimless crime." The court rejected a novel strategy implemented by Bristol District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter, who had sought to cut down on gun violence by seeking pretrial detention for every person charged with illegal gun possession in his jurisdiction.
The court said the law, known as 58A, does not include illegal gun possession on the list of criminal charges that qualify for a dangerousness hearing.
(http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/greene_sjcgants2_met.jpg)
Contact Info:
Governor's Office: 888-870-7770
(TTY: 617-727-3666)
email:
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=gov3utilities&sid=Agov3&U=Agov3_contact_us
-
Thanks for the info...
Don't have a chance of doing anything about it though. Our state constitution allows the legislature to do whatever it wants within the Commonwealth regarding firearms.
I will form a heated response tonight when I get home. Most of the emails I send to this dimwit go unanswered.....and Mumbles Menino ain't much better. Thankfully, I don't live in Boston...
-
Don't ya love how he puts a few good thing in there that only affect criminals. Things that I (and I believe most gun owners) would support.
BUT>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then comes what he REALLY wants. No private sales and limits on purchase!
-
Don't ya love how he puts a few good thing in there that only affect criminals. Things that I (and I believe most gun owners) would support.
BUT>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then comes what he REALLY wants. No private sales and limits on purchase!
Click!
-
We already have restrictions on private sales to four per year. None on purchase yet, other than the “List” of approved…..
It's the balance of the bill that gets me up in arms but again, they don't care in Boston what we think. They believe that they, the "Brain Trust" of the Commonwealth, are our keepers because we are unable to do for ourselves. As I’ve said in a previous post, the most invasive government in existence.
A few years ago, a young boy in Dorchester (a particularly shitty little piece of Boston) shot and killed his cousin with his gang banger older brothers 9mm Glock in an accidental shooting. Mom had five kids by four men, none of whom resided within the residence. Two kids playing with big bro's gat, one dead, the other marred for life. The Mayor, Mumbles Menino, later that day blamed the GUN for the killing, NOT the brother who had the gun illegally or the MOTHER who left two ten year old kids alone at home. He immediately started a full court press to get the GUNS off the street, not rid the streets of the criminals who have MOST of the guns in Boston. (Boston has further restrictions that don’t apply to the state).
Last year, the kid who had the illegal firearm was sentenced to NOTHING! Seams that in Boston, owning a firearm illegally is not a crime if you’re a person of lesser means than the normal resident who might be responsible, law abiding and been through several NICS reviews prior to buying that firearm.
It’s absolute bullshit, big stinking piles of smelly, fly infested, mushroom growing bullshit….
-
We already have restrictions on private sales to four per year. None on purchase yet, other than the “List” of approved…..
It's the balance of the bill that gets me up in arms but again, they don't care in Boston what we think. They believe that they, the "Brain Trust" of the Commonwealth, are our keepers because we are unable to do for ourselves. As I’ve said in a previous post, the most invasive government in existence.
A few years ago, a young boy in Dorchester (a particularly shitty little piece of Boston) shot and killed his cousin with his gang banger older brothers 9mm Glock in an accidental shooting. Mom had five kids by four men, none of whom resided within the residence. Two kids playing with big bro's gat, one dead, the other marred for life. The Mayor, Mumbles Menino, later that day blamed the GUN for the killing, NOT the brother who had the gun illegally or the MOTHER who left two ten year old kids alone at home. He immediately started a full court press to get the GUNS off the street, not rid the streets of the criminals who have MOST of the guns in Boston. (Boston has further restrictions that don’t apply to the state).
Last year, the kid who had the illegal firearm was sentenced to NOTHING! Seams that in Boston, owning a firearm illegally is not a crime if you’re a person of lesser means than the normal resident who might be responsible, law abiding and been through several NICS reviews prior to buying that firearm.
It’s absolute bullshit, big stinking piles of smelly, fly infested, mushroom growing bullshit….
Livestock!
-
I forget where I saw it but I saw a report yesterday that 80% of crime in America is gang related.
What are they doing about Gangs ?
Found it;
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php/topic,6604.20/topicseen.html
Page 3 post #22
-
It's not the guns fault.. (singing to the choir here) but then I keep hearing......there should be huge fines or prison time for the responsible adult if a juvenile gets hold of a weapon and something terrible happens.
There is ..to me.... a whole kettle of fish simmering on this one.
what is considered juvenile age.. what is the circumstance involved.. granted..adults need to be responsible.. but to be thrown in jail?
Had a heated conversation the other evening with some one over this.
-
Don't ya love how he puts a few good thing in there that only affect criminals. Things that I (and I believe most gun owners) would support.
BUT>>>>>>>>>>>>
Then comes what he REALLY wants. No private sales and limits on purchase!
And that is how gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment get sucked into supporting anti-2nd legislation >:(
-
Thanks for the info...
Don't have a chance of doing anything about it though. Our state constitution allows the legislature to do whatever it wants within the Commonwealth regarding firearms.
I will form a heated response tonight when I get home. Most of the emails I send to this dimwit go unanswered.....and Mumbles Menino ain't much better. Thankfully, I don't live in Boston...
Timothy (and others)
Unless you're writing an "atta boy" to a politcian, you're wasting your time with email. If you're trying to get them to change their mind, they need to know that there is a constituent out there motivated enough to put pen to paper, buy a stamp and walk to the post office. This is the same amount of effort required to vote absentee and they know it. You may not change their mind but you will get a response.
FQ13
-
It's not the guns fault.. (singing to the choir here) but then I keep hearing......there should be huge fines or prison time for the responsible adult if a juvenile gets hold of a weapon and something terrible happens.
There is ..to me.... a whole kettle of fish simmering on this one.
what is considered juvenile age.. what is the circumstance involved.. granted..adults need to be responsible.. but to be thrown in jail?
Had a heated conversation the other evening with some one over this.
That depends, if they are deciding what age to allow abortions with out parental consent it's around 12, but when they are compiling statistics on children's gun related deaths I believe the age is around 30.
-
That depends, if they are deciding what age to allow abortions with out parental consent it's around 12, but when they are compiling statistics on children's gun related deaths I believe the age is around 30.
Its true. This is one of those things that should be regulated by common sense rather than law. Sadly commonsense is scarce on the ground. I want to strangle some of these idiots that leave a loaded gun unsecured when they have a 5 year old in the house. On the other hand Tom's 12 year old is old enough to know better. I am really at a loss on where to draw the legal line on this one.
FQ13
-
When you need something passed, just say those famous words:
Its for the children OR It will reduce crime and punish the criminals,..
All that other stuff at the end,,, well that's not nearly as important as protecting children, and punishing criminals..
-
Well let us face it. You can't expect too much from a state that elected a U.S. Senator who can't drive over a bridge and the other who can't seem to shoot an M-79 without getting hit by his own shrapnel and then gets decorated for it. :-X
-
Well let us face it. You can't expect too much from a state that elected a U.S. Senator who can't drive over a bridge and the other who can't seem to shoot an M-79 without getting hit by his own shrapnel and then gets decorated for it. :-X
And the third one didn't know his boyfriend was running a gay prostitution ring
-
Timothy (and others)
Unless you're writing an "atta boy" to a politcian, you're wasting your time with email. If you're trying to get them to change their mind, they need to know that there is a constituent out there motivated enough to put pen to paper, buy a stamp and walk to the post office. This is the same amount of effort required to vote absentee and they know it. You may not change their mind but you will get a response.
FQ13
Quaker,
Not to quibble (but I guess I will anyway ;-) ), I have had a good response from Senator Bill Nelson (D) but a lousy response from Senator Mel Martinez (R) when it comes to correspondence by e-mail. In fact, Senators Baucus and Tester responded to me via e-mail and I am not one of their constituents! However, I do agree with you that a letter might be more effective because of the reason you gave above. I think e-mail has its place and has emerged as the default form of correspondence in business, personal and political relationships, so we should not dissuade its use.
-
Its true. This is one of those things that should be regulated by common sense rather than law. Sadly commonsense is scarce on the ground. I want to strangle some of these idiots that leave a loaded gun unsecured when they have a 5 year old in the house. On the other hand Tom's 12 year old is old enough to know better. I am really at a loss on where to draw the legal line on this one.
FQ13
Shea Porter(D) responds by E Mail, Judd Gregg (R) (former Gov) replies by snail mail, Jeanne Sheheen, (D) (another former Gov)is the only one who has never replied.