Source.

A Bay State gun rights advocate is calling out Attorney General Maura Healey’s firearm licensing guidance in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision on guns.

Jim Wallace, writing on behalf of the Gun Owners Action League, is urging Gov. Charlie Baker to step in and block the AG’s move.

“We are aware of the joint ‘guidance’ released by the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General and the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security,” Wallace wrote. “We are officially demanding that the so-called ‘guidance’ be retracted and revised as it does not reflect the decision handed down by the Court!”

Wallace is referring to guidance issued by Healey’s office and the EOPSS on July 1 in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

In that case, the nation’s highest court ruled a New York law restricting firearm licenses to those who could show “proper cause” to carry was unconstitutionally infringing on residents’ 2nd Amendment rights.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court in a 6-3 decision, specifically cited Massachusetts as a state with similar licensing laws.

Healey was swift to respond to the court’s decision, issuing clarifications for licensing authorities — in the Bay State, that’s usually the local police chief — explaining that the state’s “good reason” rule was no longer applicable.

“Following the Bruen decision, licensing authorities can no longer enforce the ‘good reason’ provision of the Massachusetts law, which allowed license restrictions or denials if an applicant lacked a sufficiently good reason to fear injury to person or property,” Healey and Public Safety and Security Secretary Terrence Reidy’s offices said in a joint release.

However, the state officials also said some restrictions within the law do still apply, specifically the provision that allows chiefs to determine if a person is “suitable for a firearm.”

So it’s no longer “may issue,” it’s now “may issue” depending upon whatever we think today.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.

Healey is a witch.  You didn’t think they would actually follow the law, did you?

Is it the first circuit court of tyrants deciding for Massachusetts?

“(T)he First Circuit of the US Court of Appeals ruled that the right to self-defense is at its “zenith inside the home,” and the right is “plainly more circumscribed” outside.

“The “core right” protected by the Second Amendment is for citizens to use arms in defense of home, the court said in its decision. “Public carriage of firearms for self-defense falls outside the perimeter of this core right.”

Because after all, when a man leaves his home, he is no longer made in God’s image and not worthy of self defense or protection of his family.  Here the tyrants did it to the peasants.

In another case, the peasants did it to the other peasants (via WiscoDave).

The sweeping 30-page measure will raise the legal age to buy semi-automatic rifles to 21. To obtain such weapons, people will need to pass an enhanced background check, take a training course and wait 10 business days after a purchase.

I-1639 also will enact a storage law. Gun owners who don’t secure their firearms with devices such as a trigger lock or safe could be charged with gross misdemeanor or felony “community endangerment” crimes for allowing prohibited people (such as children) to access and display or use the weapons.

Essentially, it declares all semi-automatic guns is an “assault rifle.”  Nope.  Can’t use it for defense of home and hearth or children and wife.  Just because.  Man isn’t made in God’s image at all.  We’re all just animals to the folks in Washington.

They don’t need black-robed tyrants to lord it over them.  They strip themselves of their God-given rights voluntarily, making it even easier for the communists to load them onto trains.

Ignoring the science that informs us that gun confiscations don’t prevent suicide, Massachusetts lawmakers are flirting with more progressive dreams of utopia.

BOSTON — Supporters of new gun laws and opponents clashed Tuesday over a bill that would allow guns to be temporarily seized from people deemed at high risk of hurting themselves or others.

Rep. David Linsky filed the legislation, which would add Massachusetts to a handful of states that allow firearms to be seized by a court-issued civil order at the request of families, law enforcement officers or some health care providers.

“There is no way, if a family member goes to a police department or court, there is no legal way to remove the firearms from the house,” Linsky said. “We can close a loophole in the Massachusetts court system.”

The Joint Committee on the Judiciary heard testimony on dozens of bills under the umbrella of “crime legislation” at a crowded public hearing, including two gun suppressor bills.

Ahead of the hearing, Linsky held a lobby day to showcase support for his bill. He is pushing for the establishment of what the bill calls an extreme risk protective order. California, Washington, Connecticut and Indiana have similar laws, according to gun law advocacy groups.

“Gun law advocacy groups.”  Is that what Everytown and Bloomberg have told them to call the controllers now?  Gun law advocacy groups?  So they’re still the controllers, no matter what you call them.  You can’t put lipstick on a pig and get anything but a pig.

Jim Wallace, the executive director of the Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts, opposes the protective order bill. He said it does not do enough to address what happens after a firearm is taken away from an at-risk person.

“You’ve got somebody who has an issue, you’ve got to drag them through this process which is going to aggravate the issue and then you’re going to take away their civil rights, and then what?” Wallace said. “What are we doing for them? Nothing.”

That’s the wrong reason to oppose this proposal, Jim.  The right reason is that it violates the constitution, which is the covenant under which we all agreed to live, and that constitution is based on God-given rights.

Wallace said the bill “does not tackle the issue of mental health” and raised questions about whether a person deemed an extreme risk should be permitted to do other things like drive a vehicle or handle chemicals.

“And here’s one nobody wants to talk about: If they’re not a citizen, are they immediately deported? Unfortunately the bill is a good soundbite but it’s not a good solution,” Wallace said.

The bill’s supporters argue extreme risk protective orders could lead people to connect with the mental health services they need.

Gun law advocates hissed as Wallace testified for two gun suppressor bills alongside National Rifle Association spokesman John Hohenwarter and American Suppressor Association President and Executive Director Knox Williams. The bills were filed by Rep. Josh Cutler and Rep. Paul Frost.

They hissed because that’s what vipers do.  I made a mistake when I compared them to pigs.  They are more like pit vipers, and you can’t put lipstick on pit vipers either and get anything but a pit viper.

Chelsea Police Chief Brian Kyes and Arlington Police Chief Fred Ryan offered joint testimony against the suppressor bills, saying they put officers and communities at risk.

“This is common sense that the great General Court should oppose this legislation,” Ryan said. “If we increase the volume of suppressors on the streets of commonwealth, we increase the likelihood that they’ll be diverted to illicit use.”

About a dozen communities in the state rely on ShotSpotter, a technology designed to detect gunfire. Kyes said suppressors would hamper the effectiveness of the tool by making gunfire more difficult to detect than it already is.

“They do a pretty good job, not a great job. There’s no way in the world it could pick up something with a suppressor,” Kyes said. “Suppressors would impede public safety.”

If this was true, it would be only because no one besides LEOs can carry weapons in Massachusetts, leaving people defenseless in the face of violence.

Angus McQuilken, a member of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, said before the hearing the suppressor debate isn’t about hearing protection at all. He argued gun manufacturers are hoping to expand into a new market to boost sales.

“This is about the money. What is it almost always about when the gun lobby is trying to advance legislation? It is about the money.

It’s all about the money.  No shooter, like me or the ones who read this web site has ever advocated for suppressors because, you know, they help hearing protection and make it possible to shoot with ear plugs without ear muffs, thus avoiding the difficult cheek weld and get better eye relief.  So says the controllers.

Good Lord.  What an entanglement of ass clowns.  Say, what firearms manufacturers are still ensconced or headquartered in Massachusetts anyway?  Why are they still there?  Don’t they know that we don’t like the controllers?

Boston Herald:

Massachusetts House Speaker Robert DeLeo says he expects the dispute over Attorney General Maura Healey’s crackdown on so-called copycat assault weapons to ultimately be decided in court.

DeLeo on Saturday ruled out any House action on the gun issue as lawmakers held their final formal sessions of the year.

The Democratic speaker also said Rep. John Fernandes, a Milford Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Healey asking her to clarify under what authority she acted when she recently sent an enforcement letter to gun dealers.

Gun rights advocates have challenged Healey’s crackdown. The Democrat says the sale of “copy” or “duplicate” weapons are illegal under the state’s assault weapons ban.

DeLeo says he’s not sure if Healey overstepped her authority and expects the courts to decide.

The House could impeach her, or they could pass a law that fired her, or they could clarify that she cannot implement the law as she plans, or better yet, they could repeal all guns laws and prove themselves on the side of liberty.  They could even pass a resolution demanding that she be tarred and feathered.

But any of these things apparently take too much courage.  John Adams famously observed that the American constitution “was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  You can add to that leading the American system requires at least a modicum of courage.

That the speaker of the house would defer to the courts is disgraceful and cowardly.  It is things like this that will ultimately end the great American experiment.