Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGun control bill advances in Massachusetts House following 111-37 vote
House Republicans appeared to be nearly unanimous in voting against the bill, with the notable exception of Grafton Republican George Peterson who was involved in negotiating changes to the legislation from an earlier version that had cleared the Public Safety Committee.
Prior to the vote, an unusually large number of House Democrats joined their Republican colleagues to support a bid to delay a vote on gun legislation for one week, but the measure failed.
The House Ways and Means Committee polled the revised bill overnight Tuesday after an earlier version, authored by House Speaker Robert DeLeo, received only mediocre support. The latest version (H 4278) received a 10-3 vote from the House Ways and Means Committee by Wednesday morning.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/07/gun_control_bill_moves_ahead_i.html
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Good.
"Shall Issue" arms every nut that wants to feel important.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)for possession. Historically, may issue have been racist. In fact, the most effective gun control lobby in the past 100 years has been the KKK, who brought us restrictions on concealed carry in the 1920s. That is how concealed carry licenses in California really work. There is evidence of racial discrimination in LA County CCW licensing authority. In LA and Orange Counties, being a top contributor to the Sheriff's re election campaign is the most important criteria. In other words, bribery. Giving some cop arbitrary authority, such as denying licensing for personal opinion, is illiberal and has no place in a liberal democracy.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Fuck that.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)If not, you're a hypocrite
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)would you accept prior restraint on free speech or any other of your rights?
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)Do you carry a firearm?
I'm a liberal.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)some even carry. I do not normally but I have the license and I like having the choice. And I think you should have verifiable proof before denying a right. The rich white guys always have shall issue, see New York City, the brown people not so much.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)I didn't see that in the definition anywhere.
Thank you for the civil reply. You'll notice above we tend to be polite here also. I try not to get involved with gun threads in the other forums. Its a waste of time.
Do you think no one should own a firearm at all for sport, protection, collectors? Or is it just carrying?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Chances are, I'm further left than you are (a lot of my political positions would get me banned if I were to openly advocate them...radical socialistic views are not welcome here). Liberalism does not require being anti-gun, nor does that equivalency even make sense.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You were saying?
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)Absolutely false. "Shall issue" means that issuing authorities are expected to adhere to the licensing standards that they have created. "May issue" allows the powers-that-be to deny anyone for any reason. That invites massive abuse of authority, as was seen in the Jim Crow South.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that is why California and Hawaii had to change their laws to Shall issue.
Don't get your hopes up.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Quincy and Sharon are already in line to cut nice fat checks for their
intransigence on this issue. Picture something like this with a Massachusetts
place name, drawn on a MA bank:
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Or why the revised version was not available for review prior to the vote being held?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)A host that ignores the SOP hundreds of times. Need I say more.