There's no need to demonstrate proficiency when renewing, so that point is moot. I don't mind the requirement to renew, but if the turnaround time exceeds the 40 day state limit, both the police and I are forced into criminal behavior, and there is simply no point in that - it's just paperwork.

"This is a good way to keep check on the ability of people with guns to handle them properly and make sure they are in a good physical and mental state."

The only thing a renewal verifies is that the renewer's check doesn't bounce.

How many times have you denied a certificate? Just wondering here...

One thing to do would be to hire more police, or some clerical staff at minimum, to help with the flood of deadly weapon license renewals. Of course that would likely require more taxes and, naturally, more of those dreaded public employees. The good news is, if this were done, then the citizenry can be better assured of being properly armed in the face of the threat inevitably raised by the fact of more public employees.

One would think, but that's not how it's done today. Today if a legal gun owner applies for a renewal and the renewal takes longer than the legally defined 40 day maximum, the (formerly) legal gun owner, through no fault of his own, becomes an automatic felon. Where is the justice in that?

Amor piercing bullets? Please define because pretty much every rifle caliber in existence is amor piercing. This is an excuse to place broad discretionary and ill conceived regulations into the hands of the US AG. Don't believe me, the authority to regulate so called armor piercing bullets was created in 1968 and was specifically applied to handgun ammo only by congress. Please tell me the number of police officers wearing vests killed by handguns with rifle calibers or composite makeup ever? You can't because it's apparently 0. No one can point to a cop killed by such a bullet through their vest. These supposed cop killer, teflon coated bullets aren't "armor piercing' nor are they particularly deadly. Any coating is to ease wear on the barrel and has no effect on the terminal side of the ballistics equation (ie; when the bullet hits something).

People have to stop getting their knowledge of guns from Hollywood, Law & Order, etc; because it's all BS. Even gun owners are woefully under educated on the subject because there was a movement 20 years ago to fracture the "gun lobby" as a movement that was partially successful.

Armor Piercing Bullets are defines as having a full metal jacket rather than just a lead slug. The point is not how many Police were killed by armor piercing bullets the point is that there is NO need for them in Sport/Hunting or personal defense. And as far as I can find at least 40 US police officers were killed by gunfire this year alone. So tell me why do YOU need to own armor piercing bullets? And finally I got my knowledge of weapons while serving in the USCG which is not hollywood, I received training from experts in the field. Oh and just to make matters more clear here is what Wikipedia says about Armor Piercing Bullets: Armor-piercing rifle and pistol cartridges are usually built around a penetrator of hardened steel, tungsten, or tungsten carbide, and such cartridges are often called 'hard-core bullets'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor-piercing_shot_and_shell#Small_arms

Automatic weapons are heavily regulated by the feds already in this country. You CAN NOT just go and buy or possess a fully automatic weapon without jumping through many hoops first. And probably 5% of anyone who applies for a class III license to possess full auto weapons actually gets approved for one.

> Armor Piercing Bullets are defines as having a full metal jacket rather than just a lead slug.

Not even close. A FMJ is a copper jacket and has no AP potential. Bullets shot from modern rifle cartridges would fall apart without a jacket if they were just lead without a jacket.

> The point is not how many Police were killed by armor piercing bullets the point is that there is NO need for them in Sport/Hunting or personal defense. And as far as I can find at least 40 US police officers were killed by gunfire this year alone. So tell me why do YOU need to own armor piercing bullets?

What need do you have speaking on this public forum??? The nice thing about a right (and freedom in general) is I don't have to prove my need to exercise it, the government needs to prove how banning it will be effective. Oh, and you quote the number of cops killed this year but not the ones killed by AP. Why? I am pretty sure because most, if not all of those cops were shot with slow moving .380 ACP, .25 ACP or other very basic and sometimes very old handgun calibers since that is the crap gang bangers use.

> And finally I got my knowledge of weapons while serving in the USCG which is not hollywood, I received training from experts in the field.

Then you will know that M822 is not AP but is M193 with a steel base. Yet, M822 fits the definition you quoted in the wiki but alas is not considered AP by the AGs office.

Daniel, true armor-piercing bullets are not available to civilians.

Funny how you quote wikipedia but you don't read the text: 'Rifle armor-piercing ammunition generally carries its hardened penetrator within a copper or cupronickel jacket, similar to the jacket which would surround lead in a conventional projectile.'

You keep spouting about the full metal jacket but don't understand that it is the hardened penetrator what makes an armor-piercing bullet. Read this again: 'similar to the jacket which would surround lead in a conventional projectile.'

Now since you think civilians can own armor-piercing ammunition, please direct me to a store that sells it to civilians.

@terraformer - Sometimes you seem to know what you are talking about but you seem to only want to state the parts that suit your argument. You say that you do not need AP rounds but as an American you have a RIGHT to them, never saw that section of the constitution myself. The training I received was with an M9 pistol, M16A2 rifle as well as limited training with shotguns and older military rifle variations.

No @Daniel Vassily, I am not selectively arguing points, I am merely stating a very well known fact that, as per the US supreme court, fundamental rights (ie; guns and anything to do with guns), can only be restricted via "narrowly tailored" restrictions to "serve a compelling governmental interest", leaving no "less restrictive alternative".

An outright ban based on fear of something that has never happened is not exactly "narrowly tailored". We don't ban vests, but we don't say that felons aren't allowed to wear them.

Again, a fundamental tennet of liberty is we don't have to justify our freedoms, those who seek to limit our freedoms must justify their actions.

@roger - I also didn't discuss how many grains each projectile weighs etc etc. I was generalizing and I admit I didn't make the point of the hardened penetrator etc. The point I was trying to make is that rounds of this sort are just not needed for the legal uses of firearms in MA. And finally I don't know where to get AP rounds as I have no need of them I've never bothered to try to purchase them. Again my point is where is the need for these types of weapons and rounds. I bring up the AP rounds issue as that seems to be the big contention point between the NRA and the Feds.

@Terraformer - I agree with your point "a fundamental tennet of liberty is we don't have to justify our freedoms, those who seek to limit our freedoms must justify their actions" I just think that it is justifiable to ban automatic weapons and AP rounds etc.

as already stated;
Automatic weapons are heavily regulated by the feds already in this country. You CAN NOT just go and buy or possess a fully automatic weapon without jumping through many hoops first. And probably 5% of anyone who applies for a class III license to possess full auto weapons actually gets approved for one.

@ Daniel re: "I agree with your point "a fundamental tennet of liberty is...."

You mentioned earlier that AP seems to be the NRA's new issue with the .gov. Here is why, the BATFE regulations they have proposed have nothing to do with true AP and are a canard to further restrict things having nothing to do with true safety. Just as the NFA ban, the AWB and every useless and ineffective gun control measure before it, the point is to restrict lawful citizens access to firearms as much as they possibly can. They make up excuses why x is SOOOO deadly but in reality, it's not any more deadly than Y. It's just a form of misdirection in order to make incremental gains towards the real goal which is a complete ban. Once you realize this, you will understand that the .30-06 that hunters like (and which is ostensibly protected by the right in your mind) is far worse then the FN5.7 the anti-gunners have a hair across their rears for at the moment. The FN5.7 is a glorified .22 magnum yet the anti-gunners call it AP because it has a pointy tip.

This is why we have such a rabid rejection of this effort. We see it for what it is, incremental infringement.

just to clear things up.
Armor piercing rounds are not obtainable by civilians. armor piercing rounds are fully jacketed BUT they also have a steel core which makes them armor piercing. just having a jacket does NOT make them armor piercing.
Automatic weapons have been strongly regulated since 1934 with the passing of the NFA and no automatic weapons made after 1986 are able to be possessed by any civilian.
A well regulated militia is not what you think it is. at the time the second amendment was written the word "regulated" meant fully functional not fully governed. This makes two types of militia. An organized militia such as the National Guard and the unorganized militia which is made up of every able bodied civilian capable of using a firearm proficiently.

Just to sum things up here. The second amendment affords us the right to keep and bear arms. there are no stipulations. there is no the right to keep and bear arms... except for this or that. it is all encompassing. There is no need to "need" there is only the right to keep and bear. PERIOD

@Jim - You are 100% correct in your definition of the right to keep and bear arms WAS all encompassing, at the time personal weapons were limited to single shot personal arms. The founders were speaking about the weapons known to be available in that time period. The term "regulated" I agree could be and probably was meant as you express it, but that's why we have a supreme court to define what the founders meant and in many cases the founders left wiggle room for circumstance that might come to be that they could not conceive of at the time.
My point on the militia was that along with the right to keep and bear arms we as citizens were given the responsibility of protecting the nation whether via a state militia or a citizens brigade type along the lines of the minutemen. And so many people want to forget about that responsibility.
I am not against gun rights I just think we need to put certain common sense regulations on the purchase, sale, use, storage of the weapons. And still through all of this argument I've continually asked the question of Why do you need advanced weapons and rounds and the only answer I've gotten is that you have the right to. I personal do not think that is enough of a reason.
If we don't put the "do not cross this line" at Automatic Weapons then where do we begin to limit a gun owners rights? Anti Tank weapons? Depleted Uranium rounds? Because I think we can all agree that adding a M134 mini gun to your Hummer is probably a bit too much

While i agree with regulations to felons and mentally unstable people, you do have to remember that the second amendment was put in place to defend the country. Yes at the time it was written we only had muzzle loaders. This also means at the time an powers that be also had muzzle loaders. times have changed however. We are passed the times of single shot rifles.
Like i said there is already a line drawn in the sand at automatic weapons. as well as destructive devices (which are unobtainable in MA)
Also to give everyone a heads up. at the time an arm was defined as a firearm about the size of a mans arm. So the arguments about anti tank weapons, tanks, jets with missiles is a moot point since they wouldn't have been covered under the second amendment in the first place.

What does AP ammo have to do with law-abiding gun owners renewing their state issued 2nd Amendment permission slip? With this bill we are not seeking changes to the existing laws on AP ammo or automatic weapons, we are merely seeking a compromise that will allow us to stay legal when the renewals take longer than the statutory 40 day maximum.

as already stated;
Automatic weapons are heavily regulated by the feds already in this country. You CAN NOT just go and buy or possess a fully automatic weapon without jumping through many hoops first. And probably 5% of anyone who applies for a class III license to possess full auto weapons actually gets approved for one.

as already stated - if someone is determined enough and has enough money, they'll get one.

hahahaha then what does banning them do according to your logic?

Please read Massachusetts General Law Chapter 140, Section 131(e) and explain to me how said law is "working fine" when renewals and first issues routinely take much longer than the statutory 40 day maximum defined therein.

@Bill,

Why no reason for a private citizen to own automatic weapons? There's plenty of reasons, not excluding financial investment.

Do you even know what purpose they really serve? It's not to mow down groups of unarmed people in the movie theater, if that's what you've been conditioned to think by the communist media.

If i recall correctly, there have been only 2 fatal shootings involving full auto weapons after 1938 and one involved a police officer. All this fear of full auto weapons in the hands of law-abiding Americans is irrational.

If anything, we'll see a large number of illegal full autos coming back from Mexico, in the hands of gangsters.

Question for Bill: Guess who gave it to them?
Answer: The U.S. Government.

Then you've made the important point, that the gun laws in MA need to be changed both for safety of society at large and to protect the rights of gun owners. As I have stated before I am NOT an armchair gun expert, I am not an expert at all but I was trained in the use of small arms during my stint serving my country in the USCG. I believe that US citizens that are not convicted criminals, that are not suffering from mental illness, that are trained in Gun safety and shooting and are willing to take personal responsibility for their weapons should be allowed to own guns that are NOT automatic weapons. I still have never heard a reasonable excuse as to why a private citizen would need automatic weapons and armor piercing rounds.

I once said something to my Chief that he did not appreciate. I would not be surprised if he tried to pull my LTC for no good reason other than I told him something he did not want to hear.

@John Merrett - I agree most crimes committed with the use of a firearm are not done by responsible gun owners, the criminal element has other avenues to obtain firearms. I applaud your support of gun safety as from what I can tell most gun accidents come from improper handling and storage of weapons. This is why I support everything you've said above, we are Americans guns are part of our culture and as has been expressed here it is our right as a citizen to own firearms. My problem is that so many people here do not want to have the responsibilities that go along with that right.

I was not required to shoot at a firing range to obtain my LTC concealed? I just had to take the safety course, fill out the forms and pay.

This bill has nothing to do with automatic weapons. We are merely seeking a compromise that would correct the injustice of becoming a "paper felon" when the state fails to follow it's own renewal law.

The natural right of self-defense is valid forever, regardless of what you think.

@roger - I have no problem with self defense, I believe that if someone breaks into my home in the middle of the night I should be allowed to shoot them between the eyes and then go back to bed. I'm pretty sure you have no idea what I think from your comments but I will lay it out plainly. Firearms should be allowed to american citizens under the conditions that have been discussed in this forum. I believe that the right comes along with a responsibility and if you don't believe that Rights have corresponding Responsibilities then there is no use continuing this.

This bill has nothing to do with AP ammo. We are merely seeking a compromise that would correct the injustice of becoming a "paper felon" when the state fails to follow it's own renewal law.

@ Daniel Vassily

What do rights and responsibilities have to do with the Government treating us like children? The only way of becoming a responsible adult is to grow up from the childhood phase.

Are you so blind that you cannot see that the Government wants their subjects to be like children, always depending on their 'parents'?

@Dwarven1 - Again another example of why our gun laws need to be revamped.

The odds of being hit by lightening in your life are 1 in 10000 Shouldn't we have stricter weather laws?

The odds of being injured while shaving are 1 in 6585, Shouldn't we ban multiple bladed razors (or as I call them Automatic Razors)?

The odds of drowning in a bathtub are 1 in 685000 I believe the federal government needs to assign every bathroom with a bathtub it's own lifeguard.

The odds of a comments section discussing a serious topic degenerating into a kindergarten brawl 1 in 1

Enjoy the rest of your day, I have to go hunt some squirrel with an anti tank rocket.

@ Daniel Vassily,

You are trying to make fun of his argument and support your own but you are making his argument for him.
Most people would find having weather laws, multiple razor blades and bathtube laws idiotic, yet the chances of getting injured because of those causes are higher than the chances of being shot by a legal gun owner.

Therefore, why have all these restricting laws?

Let me ask you, why are you so afraid?

I don't know if a flash suppressor or telescoping stock make the weapon more dangerous but they definitely make the weapon easier to conceal while sneaking the weapon into a movie theatre or onto a college campus.

a "flash suppressor" does NOT make it easier to conceal a firearm... it makes the firearm longer.

@Daniel Vassily

If you pin the telescoping stock to it's shortest position, this is legal. It's now the most concealable it will be and yet, it's now blessed by the anti-gun gods.

@James a Park - A flash Suppressor suppresses the muzzle flash thus making it harder to spot where the shot came from.

@daniel
wrong again a flash suppressor is there in an attempt to protect the shooter from night blindness.

@Daniel Vassily,

No, it makes the flash less visible to the person firing the gun. Even if what you were saying is true, anyone bent on a crime could easily go to NH to get a flash suppressor and put it on an otherwise MA compliant rifle. Finally, the vast majority of crimes involving guns do not involve guns that are outlawed by the assault weapon ban in MA.

Go to a gun shop in MA and ask to see an AR15 or AK47 and ask what makes it MA compliant. Anyone reasonable will walk away thinking those features are pointless.

@jim - This is getting tiresome you say "@daniel - wrong again a flash suppressor is there in an attempt to protect the shooter from night blindness." Well sorry to burst your bubble but the US Army field Manual states something along the lines of this "A flash suppressor, also known as a flash guard, flash eliminator, flash hider, or flash cone, is a device attached to the muzzle of a rifle or other gun that reduces the visible signature of the burning gases that exit the muzzle. This reduces the chances that the shooter will be blinded in dark conditions. A secondary benefit of flash suppression is the reduction of the flash visible to the enemy."

This bill has nothing to do with flash hiders or telescoping stocks. We are merely seeking a compromise that would correct the injustice of becoming a "paper felon" when the state fails to follow it's own renewal law.

@Friday - I am not sure of what you mean bu a natural right, could you expand? As far as I knew Natural Rights are concepts, not things. As far as I can tell the natural rights spoken of by our forefathers were that "All men are created equal," "Inalienable rights," "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Natural rights were enumerated in the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.

Amen. Far better than it is today.

This is a good compromise solution. For now.

@Mike - You still seem to not understand that I admitted to simplifying the facts surrounding AP rounds, and you still do not seem to understand I don't really care to debate the finer points of ammunition. I was trying to state that rounds of this sort, Military, Penetrator, Dum Dum, Hollow Point, Exploding Tip, have no practical civilian use and thus should not be available to the general public.

I have also stated that I am NOT a firearms expert but that I was trained in their use during my service time with the USCG.

You believe machine gun should be legal "even of new manufacture", as far as I know you CAN legally shoot these weapons at qualified gun ranges, which will still give you "loads of fun" (pun intended). What possible tactical purpose do you need to shoot a weapon for sport or hunting?

I totally agree that if you pass the background check you should be able to purchase a gun so please get your story straight, I have never once advocated criminalizing gun ownership I have repeatedly stated that as Americans we have the RIGHT to own guns but that restrictions do need to be in place.

So you are just simplifying the facts. Rounds of that "sort" need to be banned because you see them as having no civilian use. You want a ban, you just aren't sure on what it should be yet. Full metal jacket rounds are not just military rounds, you realize that, right? Also, the second amendment isn't for "hunting and sporting" it is for defense from others to include those who may or may not be well armed, as well as defense of the state. Many ballistic tip bullets fly much more accurately and are common among precision shooters. Nobody uses soft-point bullets in long distance competitions. Likewise, something designed for killing animals really well will kill people better. So I am failing to see your argument.

You said you received training from "experts in the field" while in the USCG. I don't know what these experts talked about, or what you retained, but you seem to not understand the capabilities of different bullets and their makeup.

What possible reason do I need a machinegun for? 1. Fun. 2. Supression. 3. Because I can...

You ARE talking about criminilizing gun owners. Let's make it illegal to have XYZ ammo, so people who have that ammo will be criminals. Let's make it illegal to have XYZ guns, so people who have them will be criminals. You even include so called "assault weapons" in what should be banned.

Mike

Daniel, you don't care to debate the finer points of various ammunition types and admit to not being an expert on the subject, but you're still trying to make proclamations on what should and should not be available.

To pick one example, hollow points have no practical civilian use? Really? On this one alone, you ought to do a lot of research before you keep talking. (hint: hollow points don't travel through walls nearly as well as the ammunition you say should be available).

You agree that Americans should be able to own guns but defining the limits is exactly what this whole subject is about. It's plainly clear that the politicians in MA would be happy to set the limit at muskets, but the Heller and MacDonald decisions refuted that logic. You seem slightly more educated on the subject compared to the politicians, but not much.

@Mike - if you want to argue go on, it makes little difference to me. Yes I simplified things and you know what I was talking about but you'd prefer to confuse the issue by arguing over semantics. And while in the USCG our arms instructors were retired USMC, they taught us to respect the weapon, that the weapon is used to kill, that is it's purpose, it wasn't a toy and it wasn't a hobby. That's what I learned, respect your weapon. Now as the USCG uses arms infrequently I am in no way an expert, but that doesn't mean I am clueless.

Your reasons for wanting to own a machine are exactly why I want them banned. You want a machine gun for "FUN", this is a serious tool not a toy. You want a machine gun for "Suppression" suppression of what? Are you regularly attacked by the taliban or do mean you want to use your machine to suppress others, like maybe the your neighbors or your government?

And yes we often make things illegal in society, like certain types of pocket knives, a soda bottle on a plane, cigarettes in restaurants so what's the big deal with the type of ammunition we've been talking about?

From reading your comments I can see there will be no reasoning with you so I will wish you a good day and stop wasting my time going around in circles with you.

I'm very aware of the power of weapons. They can be fine as toys or for entertainment as well as tools. One of my favorite things to do is go to the range with my evil AR-15 and shoot 4-500 rounds.

With regard to "supression," in my lifetime I doubt I would ever seen a need for a machinegun, but if we ensure bans and laws like these aren't passed hopefully if anything were to happen, be it tomorrow, or 300 years from now, the "people" will still have a chance. If we banned and took away all guns tomorrow this country very well may stay as free as it has been since its founding... but given a few decades or centuries, can you say that will still be the case? No, but you can say that there would be no ability to fight back. Privatized gun ownership is the last in a series of checks and balances, and in and of itself should serve as a deterrent before anything else.

Plenty of "first world" countries through time have gone rogue on their people, and done some pretty terrible things. While systems in this country make that unlikely, only 60 years ago we deemed Japanese Americans a threat worth locking up as prisoners for YEARS until the war was over... We are a society, and not immune to its evils just because we have done an OK job thus far.

Mike

So to all you gun lovers out there listen up:

1. I am not an arms or ammunition expert
2. I believe Americans have the right to own personal weapons within limits as defined by law.
3. I have had personal and practical experience with weapons (again not an expert but not clueless)
4. I have no desire to argue the respective pros and cons of different ammunition
5. I will not respond to arguments that use FUN as a basis for developing gun laws
6. I am concerned that comments like wanting a machine gun for suppression has no legal or moral place in this argument

@PaulD - You people really need to start reading the comments you are opposing.

I don't have to be an expert to know that there are types of weapons and types of ammunition that should NOT be available to the general public. My point was where is the line? I know you'd prefer to confuse the issue by arguing over the semantics of various ammunition. And while I have stated multiple times that I am not an expert in arms or ammunition I am not clueless. I don't have to be an expert in automotive dynamics to know that going 90 miles an hour around a curve on a dark rainy night isn't advisable either. While I was in the USCG our arms instructors were retired USMC, they taught us to respect the weapon, that the weapon is used to kill, that is it's purpose, it wasn't a toy and it wasn't a hobby. That's what I learned, respect your weapon.

So you state a case for Hollow points, good for you sir and if enough people agree with you that will become the law of the land and then I will respect the LAW as I do now.

1. No, you just think that things you know nothing about should be banned based of what they are called or what you presume with no real knowledge.
2. "Law" is forever changing, and can be challenged, and exist despite being illegal itself until it is challenged.
3. Ok...
4. Good to know... just that certain ammunition of which you don't actually know about should be banned.
5. Why not? It is a free country, are we not allowed to have toys if they might be dangerous? Should I not be allowed to have a corvette because I can do the same thing in a buick?
6. Owning weapons beyond your daddies hunting rifle is IRRELEVANT when talking about a free state? Really?

Germany, confiscated the guns from the Jews and Gypsies, than killed them all. We can talk about Stalin and his gun control policies too if you'd like. Or how about Mexico... not big on people owning guns for protection but government defectors to cartels run the place with a full load out... Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible and you shouldn't plan for it. THAT is ignorant and irresponsible.

@Mike so let me respond to your list because I always love arguing with
1. As I said you don't have to be an expert to be informed. I've stated where my knowledge came from, what makes you an expert other than your high opinion of yourself?
2. Yup Laws change and we have to obey them or change them, you are not doing a good job of convincing me to your viewpoint which is the beginning of every law - people agreeing on the same thing.
3. Thank you for your confirmation of my weapons experience I was feeling a bit fearful without your approval
4. Yup even though I am not an expert as an American I have the right to my opinion. And as a finer point to this No one is an expert on all things, just ask congress, a body that has to regularly vote on topics they are not experts in.
5. na na nah na nah I'm not listening. Yup I agree people can do a lot of damage with their toys, one reason I don't want you to have a machine gun.
6. It is definitely not irrelevant, wanting to own a weapon capable of putting down suppression fire at a high firing rate rate of 200+ rounds per minute is something that would be helpful during the Zombie Wars to come but a little much for hunting. If you need 200rpm when you go hunting I advise you to take up a different sport.
Hitler and Stalin are not here and Mexico is heading along the route to being a failed state exactly for all the gun violence you mention.

1. I'm not an expert. I am a machinegunner by trade in the Marine Corps, served as a Machinegunner in Afghanistan, and served as a Machinegun instructor as well as an infantry tactics instructor for a battalion of Jordanian Armed Forces. I am a MSP and NRA certified firearms instructor as well. I don't know everything, and things I don't know about I don't advocate for banning. I've never touched weed in my life, for example, and I don't think it should be treated any differently than alcohol because if what other people try to say to scare me.

2. There remains a standard laws must be held to (various state and the federal constitution). Just because they are signed in as new, doesn't mean they are in fact legal. Just because they have yet to be challenged (its not exactly easy or cheap), doesn't make them legal. There is a difference between repealing a law that isn't liked and proving one, to in fact, be illegal.

3....

4. You don't have to be an expert on everything. If you are going to go around advocating that something be made illegal, and all the owners of that thing criminilized, it is, however, a good idea to at least have a clue. You by no means have to, you just look like a fool when you say XYZ should be illegal and you don't even know what XYZ is. It's irresponsible.

5. So to clarify, no dangerous toys for adults anywhere right?

6. Deserves it's own response

6... Continued:

Just to nit pick, because I can. Any semi-automatic rifle or handgun can be fired between 300-400 rounds per minute by anyone competent. Competitors are even able to out shoot the trigger speed with practice on some of the slower guns. There is more to a rate of fire than "this many round a minute" but I will spare you the lecture.

You remain stuck on this hunting thing and won't address it. The 2nd Amendment is not for hunting. I have never hunted and I shoot regularly. Hunting is not a relevent point. No you don't need a Machinegun to hunt. Hitler and Stalin are no longer here. You are arguing that something like that would be IMPOSSIBLE in the United States. While not immediate it is far from impossible. This is a NEW country. We had slaves up until 150 years ago. We had imprisoned Americans in PRISON CAMPS by the thousands 60 years ago. We have the NDAA and the Patriot act. Nothing is imminent, but its ignorant and irresponsible to say nothing could ever happen because our politicians are nice sweet people and always would be so as a society we should not be permitted to be allowed to defend ourselves. It is just stupid to say that.

Mexico is in the world of crap they are in right now largely due to teh illicit drug trade, and in no small part due to being legally prevented from protecting themselves. Mexicans can't own guns, so they are terrorized by the cartels with 10s of thousands now dead. Yea, sure working out real well for them!

Mike

This bill has absolutely nothing to do with "assault weapons" which is an inaccurate and prejudicial term but a separate argument for another day.

This bill simply seeks a compromise that would allow already licensed law-abiding gun owners to remain legally licensed by removing the administrative burden of processing these renewals. That's it.

@Mike - Well I would say your experience makes you an expert in the care and use of weapons. Doesn't make you an expert in civil or criminal law and I am not one either. Something that keeps coming up that I want to address. I have NEVER advocated the criminalizing of gun ownership. What I have stated is that the arms and the ammunition (of a type to be agreed upon at a later date) that we will restrict should have a legal penalty. I am not saying we should criminalize gun ownership. But if the law says the XYZ Ammunition is illegal and you are found in possession of it then heck yes you should be charged. Just like the Marijuana laws you spoke of, at the moment I believe possession of under 1 ounce has been decriminalized but if you have 2 ounces in your pocket then that is a criminal act. Whether I agree or disagree with this law makes no difference, the law is there to be followed or changed and until it has been changed by the will of the people it must be followed. So I am no more criminalizing the pot smoker with a legal amount of weed than I am of a gun owner that possesses legal arms and ammunition. If a law is being challenged it's still the law and we have to abide by it until it is legal adopted, so in fact a law is a law unless our law makers suspend or revoke it. And from your comments it seems that when it comes to gun laws only your opinion counts, because I am not an expert I should shut up and sit in the back, well that definitely is NOT going to happen.

Working to pass laws to make you feel more warm and comfy when you refuse to fully understand what laws you are advocating for make you irresponsible. I am not an anarchist. I believe in laws. I think we have way to many stupid laws on the books about all sorts of things, that result in a bunch of people who don't need to be being in prisons and burning tax money just to make some people feel comfy so politicians could hold their place of power.

I am not arguing with you about being in violation of law making you a criminal. I am arguing with you in support of existing or new bad laws that will in effect criminalize people or make more good people now criminals under those laws, because they make you feel better about yourself or your own situation, regardless of what they do in fact do.

And I really am not an expert, there are people in the field who know absolutely absurd amounts about things that it would make your head spin. Those guys are the experts. I am a novice at best, but it is my field.

Mike

@Mike 6 Continued
Yes you are nit picking. And you are starting to sound like one of those Militia Survivalist so you should tone it down a bit. Yes I've seen the movie Red Dawn and I understand that it COULD happen but I am not willing to base my life around the most least likely horrible thing that could happen. I plan to live in a civil society that is governed by laws and if that system should fail I reserve the right to work to change the law and to make society safe for individual freedom and liberty. The Mexican problem is due to criminals with guns, Criminals with Guns, this is the problem. Going back to the 2nd Amendment the right to bear arms did indeed have meaning for hunting. Look up english hunting laws of the time and you'll see what I mean. In England at that time you could be found guilty of poaching just for having a gun on your possession. Thus the freedom to bear arms. The Constitution is not so narrow as you'd like to think.

I have to go now....I hear black helicopters

I said not likely in my lifetime. I'm sure the half of my family that disappeared in Germany 60 years ago didn't think it was too likely for them either. Have you ever seen a society ruled by fear? I didn't think so, its not pretty though. I'm not preparing for the end of the world, I own no Machineguns and have about 2 weeks worth of food in my house. That doesn't mean I think it is a good idea to make sure that Americans cannot own X Y Z and because it makes you feel better about yourself.

@ Daniel Vassily,

What's wrong with 'FUN'? Do you think it's bad that gun owners have FUN shooting their guns? It's is a highly de-stressful activity. I take many new shooters to the range and the common comment is how FUN this is.

And let me tell you, full auto is the most FUN of them all for lots of people.

Since you think that FUN shouldn't be a good reason, how about people who drive certain brands of cars? Should they not have access to driving those cars because they find it FUN? Please make sure to let them know that having FUN with their cars is anathema.

While you're at it, why not ban all cars that can go more than 55 miles an hour since the legal limit in MA is 55 and a car that goes faster than that serves no purpose?

No such things as justice in commie states, just peasant control as we well know.

Open carry is legal in Massachusetts as well, people just rarely choose to practice it.

Mike

I almost forgot --- They also had cannons in 1791. Cannons!

mmm, i want a cannon. That's FUN!

Dan; There are regulations on the 2nd admentment now. An arm is concidered a weapon to protect yourself. A Nuclear war head falls in to that catagory. A grenade launcher also qualifies. Look up the definition of arms as weapons. The Government has imposed regulations in the past ansd will continue for the safety of the US citizens. The gun owners are grasping at straws as they see the restrictions being tightened. If the NRA had their way Surface to Air missles would be in every home.

Get in line and speak up in support of the 28th admendment. This admendment will ban automatic weapons and still give the gun owner the right to protect himself. Contact your local & state elected official via phone, letter or e-mail and speak your mind. Elected officials will do what ever the majority voter wants unless they do not want to get re-elected.