Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) signed an very extensive package of gun control measures earlier this year – the law will allow police chiefs to ask the courts to deny persons gun rights who the cops feel are unfit.
If you live in Massachusetts be sure not to upset police if you want to keep your guns. So Constitutional rights are now subject to the whims of law enforcement.
The legislation allows police chiefs to ask courts to deny firearms identification cards needed to buy guns to individuals they feel are unfit to obtain them, toughens penalties for some gun-based crimes, creates an online portal for background checks in private gun sales, carves out a firearms trafficking unit within the state’s police department and requires that Massachusetts join the National Instant Background Check System.
Gun control advocates hailed the measures as ones that make Massachusetts “a leader for the rest of the nation.”
“With the stroke of Governor Patrick’s pen today, Massachusetts is now a leader for the rest of the nation in passing common-sense gun reform while continuing to respect the Second Amendment rights we all value,” Molly Malloy, the leader of Massachusetts’ chapter of Moms Demand Action, said in a statement. “The single most effective thing we can do to keep guns out of dangerous hands and reduce the number of Americans killed with guns every day is require criminal background checks on all sales to close the loophole that allows felons, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill to buy guns. Real leadership is what will keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, and we are grateful to have leaders on this issue taking action to protect our families in the commonwealth.”
State lawmakers from both parties agreed on the package of measures in July. The legislation was supported by both gun control advocacy groups and the Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League, though the National Rifle Association opposed the bill, arguing that government officials could abuse new licensing powers created with the legislation.
Businessman Charlie Baker, who is running for the Republican gubernatorial nomination to succeed Patrick, said in a candidate debate Wednesday that he would have signed the package of gun control measures, though he had previously avoided giving a definitive answer on whether he supported the provision allowing police chiefs to deny firearms identification cards to those they consider dangerous.
Patrick, who is considered a rising star within the Democratic Party and a potential future contender for the party’s presidential nomination, has said he will return to the private sector when his gubernatorial term expires in January.
Source: SOURCE NAME
Photo: AP Photo/Jim Cole
This is how it starts.
a person can be a pillar in the community and if the police chief doesen:t
doesn:
him no permit
2nd Amendment was never limited to Just Guns! Are people that mentally challenged bigger and better exist look around them. In the Marine Corps we learned to Improvise, Adapt and Overcome. Your minds are your best weapon provided you use it and look beyond the nose on your face. 😉
2nd Amendment was never limited to Just Guns! Are people that mentally challenged they fail realize? Bigger and Better exist look around them. In the Marine Corps we learned to Improvise, Adapt and Overcome. Your minds are your best weapon provided you use it and look beyond the nose on your face. 😉
That’s what we have government for not police chiefs. Police Chiefs need to focus on the crime n crenels n not law abiding people. U see the power Onama has put in his pocyrct well we don’t need police deciding on this n making up their own rules. Just catch the bad guy. Confiscate the weapons used n turn them over to the justice system from the trial these people are sure to get some time n hopefully one time is enough
reminds me of the, now ,not so secret, CPS ” child registry list” here in Michigan, of people the case workers “didn’t feel good about”no court, no case, just based on a “feeling”. so the “secret list” was established, much to the horror OF the people ON THE LIST, whom, many, have been tremendous assets to not only children AT RISK, but the communities they live and serve in. I KNOW because I was on it, and was denied pay from the state, for doing child care, yet while ON IT, they had no problem giving me state haven certification (I was on the local board of directors for AYSO & it was required, being I worked around 100’s of kids), gave me a foster license to keep my stepson, while they decided custody, that they ended up giving me, etc. Seems to me if it SAVES THEM $ , it’s all good, but if I wanted to earn $ from them, for doing good work, then I was “on it and ineligible”. SMH
I wonder who determines whether a ‘police’ officer is fit or unfit to carry?
Well, our government sucks