None of these laws would prevent crime. These laws are targeting law-abiding citizens. When was the last time a criminal obeyed the law? You all use Sandy Hook as a basis for your gun-control, yet everything that is being proposed wouldnt have stopped that tradegy the slightest bit. Did you forget that he stole the weapons from his mother and then killed her? He didnt buy them legally. Also what makes you think that these criminals really care about the punishment they will get? Murder is already illegal and holds a sentence up to a death penalty, but does that sway them away from committing the crime? No.

The Constitution doesn't provide carte blanche for whatever you want to do. Free speech is limited (you can't yell "fire" in a theatre), due process has its limits (your drivers license can be suspended simply for refusing to take a breathalyzer), and the government can temporarily take your property without compensation. These proposals are realist limits on what a person should own. If there were no limits you could be living next to someone with a nuclear bomb!

Well said Peter.

Really, a nuke? Is a nuke a small arm? Then no, you won't be living next door to a nuke.

Anyhow, you can yell fire in a crowded theater. If there is a fire. That's not semantic, it's important to understanding the limits we place on the 1A. That said, the decision where this fire in a theater example was introduced has actually been overruled, though the incitement of panic remains a restriction on the 1A, though rarely enforced. People can lie with impunity in this country and live free of the consequences so long as they don't personally profit. Don't thinking lying has consequences? John Kerry may well have been elected president had lying not been protected.

Second, since the 1930s new deal era, due process has effectively been limited to only enumerated rights so that is why the only due process protecting your DL is the arbitrary and capricious standard. Don't believe me? Why did congress pass a constitutional amendment banning alcohol in 1917 when now they ban all sorts of things? Because back then it was understood the constitution protected everything. Now, it protects very little.

Sadly enough generations have grown up under the new deal era "reforms" to be used to this stupidity.

> government can temporarily take your property without compensation
Depending on the circumstances, No, they can't. They must pay for the loss.

Peter...While I don't totally agree with Temperance I do have to say that every right given to us in the constitution has limits. We have the freedom of Speech but we do not have the right to Slander someone. We have religious freedom but you cannot have a polygamist family. We have the right to bear arms but that doesn't include Bombs, Tanks, RPG's and now Automatic Assault Weapons. In case you want to argue the "Shall Not Be Infringed" wording in the 2nd amendment you should read the following from USConstitution.net - "In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon." And if you wish to use the "Red Dawn" argument, that you need these assault weapons to fight a foreign or domestic oppressor, you should watch the film again, the film characters started with legal weapons then used those to get heavy weapons from the invaders. Remember every right given has it's corresponding responsibilities and as long as Americans are allowed to own guns (which I agree with by the way) they need to deal with the responsibilities as well.

Terraformer - I don't remember the phrase "small arm's" in the constitution so if we were to take it literally under the definition of "arms" then a nuke as a piece or armament (arms) would probably be legal.

Here, here. Isn't it rich that those of vehemently scream for 1st amendment rights (media) are the first in line to dismantle the 2nd Amendment...

> and limit the number of weapon sales by licensed dealers to not more than one gun per licensed individual per month.

MA gun owners have every gun they buy recorded in a database. Guess what, guns that make it from MA into criminals hands are stolen and not sold by lawful gun owners. This is a Brady wishlist item that is completely unneeded here.

> Punishments for crimes involving guns would also sharpen, with tiered punishments for possessing different weapons on school property.

They already fail to punish people with the mandatory minimum sentences in existence and the 10 yr max penalties they have. This is kabuki theater at this point.

> The bill would give police the authority to arrest without a warrant in order to quickly diffuse a dangerous situation on school property.

At least he is pissing on other parts of the constitution now.

> Four new crimes would be created....
Irrelevant and more kabuki theater criminalizing what is already criminal.

> Patrick's bill would enhance background checks by requiring courts to transmit all relevant mental health records...
As written this is fine but it's already required and the courts don't do it. Why we need a new law for the courts to ignore is beyond me.

> ... with funding for team to travel to locations with individuals in crisis; training for middle and high school personnel in recognizing and addressing mental illness in students;...
As written this is fine.

More to follow...

At the end of the day, the real meat in this bill isn't in his synopsis. He is confiscating hi-cap mags and lowering the mag limit to 7 rounds, which BTW don't exist which will cause a lot of guns to be useless in this state.

And that's the point. To make exercising this right so difficult people don't do it.

Either this right means something or it doesn't. We will see the state in court and we will win.

Actually, it doesn't make getting a firearm illegally any more difficult. Those are typically the weapons used to commit crimes. It only restricts law abiding citizens. Keep voting these fools in fellas.

True Heidi-Jean, when I said anybody I meant us law abiding folks. I should have been more specific.

I think where hes getting at with the gun show issue is that to get a permit your background check is limited to MA state records only I believe...similar to a CORI check
when you go to a licensed dealer your print is run through FBI's instant check in DC
if you were to go to a gun show...that FBI instant check wouldnt be done...thereby not finding any laws you may have broken in another state that may have prevented the purchase

and yes...if the sale was done privately the law says that paperwork needs to be filled out and filed....but regardless if its paper or electronic..those who are selling/buying illegally wont dont either of them....

No CR Cook, the permit background check is just as thorough as the one at NICS. It's a nationwide III (triple eye) check with state BOP, CORI and DMH check. No, he is pushing needless and stupid process because some lobbyist told him to.

George, this is the post of the century.

"If any gun law reduces criminal violence, I'm all for it.

Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country; and the worst gun violence."
By George Potts (speaking as a private citizen...

and cars, hammers, knives of all kinds, anyone with martial art training, blunt objects, poisons (synthetic and organic including plants), pillows... When is the left going to give up trying to control others? BTW this discussion all started with the terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook School. Seems they and other children have been left off page...

No we shouldn't pass restrictions on glass we should make the creation and possession of a molotov cocktail a crime , it probably is anyway. The point is, a car is not illegal but if use your car to mow down a bunch of pedestrians you are charged with using a dangerous weapon. Having a gun is not a crime, having ammo is not a crime, the kind of weapon and the kind of ammo you possess can be a crime (Here's an example RPG/Illegal Shotgun/Legal.

Yeah I can just see a deranged madman entering a school and killing 26 people by throwing dvd's at them. Those video games and violent movies are definitely the problem, not the guns and ammo.

Ummm actually the state can tell how you can protect your life - see below:
"First, when outside of the dwelling, in an assault and battery situation, for example, Massachusetts law recognizes the defense of self-defense if the person asserting that defense: (1) reasonably beleieved that he was being, or about to be, attacked; (2) used reasonable or proportional force (no shooting someone who slaps your face), and (3) made reasonable efforts to avoid the use of force."

If your assailant is in your dwelling there is no need to retreat so as we can see the state already limits us as to how we can protect ourselves and how forcefully we can protect ourselves depending on the situation.

No, he is not right. He missed the conversation about what arms are protected:

"We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense."

This doesn't mean RPGs and nukes but it doesn't mean revolvers either.

Terraformer - I'll admit I had not read "Millers" and I thank you for bringing it up as more knowledge is always a good thing (imo) Reading what you posted on it though it seems to have that nebulous language that causes all these arguments on interpretations. That last part “in common use at the time - for lawful purposes like self-defense." is a great example, what is common use? what are lawful purposes? Who decides?

Thanks again and I will try to read up on Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language.

I totally agree with you to a point, but once again you left out an important part of that quote. The Franklin quote says "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" and the important part you left out was the word "essential". Benjamin Franklin used this phrase will trying to convince the Pennsylvania Assembly to join the revolution. He was speaking of extreme conditions (the Revolution), he was referring to the need to to redress this condition later mentioned in the declaration of independence "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world." He was not talking about infringement of his rights he was speaking of the lack of rights whatsoever. Different situation and while applicable in spirit this quote is really not applicable to the current situation. If you want to talk about a shameful infringement upon our rights we should switch to a discussion of the Patriot Act, a most shameful revocation of citizen's rights.

Daniel Vassily - " Benjamin Franklin used this phrase will trying to convince the Pennsylvania Assembly to join the revolution. "

BUNK, he said it in 1755.

Moderator - Why is my other comment "Pending Approval" since yesterday? It's a simple statement of historic fact.
http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=6&page=238a

Printed in Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, 1755-1756 (Philadelphia, 1756), pp. 19-21.
[November 11, 1755]

Wow Bob thanks for reporting from your bunker in Idaho, guess you got this transmission out when the black helicopters were gone. All of us here in our UN concentration camps needed to hear your eloquent call to arms. The Commie/Pinko/Liberal/Federal/Socialists that rule Amerika are gonna be after you now that you've reminded us that Patriots with Guns founded this country. I mean the situation is so exactly alike that it's ..... Oh wait a minute, what you said actual wasn't useful.

Hey Bob looks like your sheep comments never made it online, one thing I'll tell you about this sheep, come into my pasture without permission and I'll happily execute the castle doctrine.

Wow John, that was racist, only black people commit crimes with guns?I always figured that we don't have a harsh federal gun law was because of the white republican congressmen who belong to the NRA. How's that for reverse racism.

It is actually Cheney they are protecting.

(Tongue in cheek)

Bob my name is Daniel, and I use my full name because I am not afraid to post my opinions in the open. And also Denial is not spelled Danial. You are a troll and as you have so far not contributed anything worth while to this conversation I'll begin to ignore you know as it's not fair to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

hehehehe look at the funny clown named bob, next year he'll be qualified to become the village idiot, go Bob! :)

"we should look to societies that did something about gun violence and reduced it to almost nil." Bob, we're not like other countries. No other country in the universe has the individual rights and freedoms that we enjoy here in the United States... That's why they all want to live here. Look to those US municipalities that have OVER REGULATED firearms...District of Columbia and Chicago to name a few. How has as it worked for them?

Thank God there are still rational people in this country!!!! Really, what does any average citizen need with an semi-automatic weapon? And who is going to pay for all these armed guards? Schools are already underfunded. I have a feeling the people who are fighting to prevent more gun control are the same people who would not agree to an increase in taxes.

Here's the Baltimore Sun website that may prove instructive for Daniel and those who seem to feel handguns are overwhelmingly the problem...the interactive map display points for each homicide in Baltimore City. Pick a year, say 2011 and compare shootings by whites in contrast to shootings by black. Enough said...

http://data.baltimoresun.com/homicides/?range=none&district=all&zipcode=all&age=all&gender=all&race=all&cause=all&article=all&show_results=Show+Results

I was calling you a racist not because your crime stats were wrong but for your assumption that because the governor and the president are black that they wouldn't do anything about instituting harsh penalties for crimes committed with firearms.

From the Bureau of Justice Statistics

Homicide Offending Rates per 100,000 Population by Race

White Black Other
1976 4.9 46.6 4.6
1977 5.1 44.4 4.8
1978 5.3 44.6 3.7
1979 5.8 47.7 5.0
1980 6.4 51.5 6.9
1981 6.0 45.9 6.3
1982 5.6 41.2 6.4
1983 5.3 36.3 6.2
1984 5.3 33.1 5.3
1985 5.1 34.0 5.8
1986 5.3 37.9 6.0
1987 5.2 36.6 5.0
1988 4.9 41.2 4.5
1989 5.1 42.0 4.7
1990 5.6 46.6 4.2
1991 5.6 51.4 5.4
1992 5.2 47.0 5.7
1993 5.2 49.2 5.6
1994 5.1 45.4 5.1
1995 4.9 39.3 5.4
1996 4.5 35.9 4.8
1997 4.1 32.2 4.5
1998 4.2 27.8 3.9
1999 3.6 25.4 3.9
2000 3.5 25.6 3.3
2001 3.5 25.6 3.0
2002 3.6 25.0 2.9
2003 3.5 25.3 3.4
2004 3.6 24.1 2.7
2005 3.5 26.5 2.8

Guest - I have no idea where you got the idea I think handguns are a problem, I never once stated anything of the sort, you seem to have me mixed up with someone else. i totally believe in the right to own a weapon, I only argue about what types of weapons those should be. You can ask John Merrett, we've argued this before and he and any of the regulars know that while I support the right to gun ownership i am willing to argue the limitations of this right.

Please get your facts straight before you post, it makes you look stupid and wastes our time.

True statistic. Right now, home invasions aren't solo acts -- they are usually 2 or more at a time. With seven rounds available, if you shoot as well as the police do statistically, you are going to be a very hurting camper if you jam/miss even once.

So we give "mental health" a pass because we can't bury enough hacks in the system to make the money work for us, but we go after guns because they appear uncivilized to the chardonnay-sucking liberal arts majors who seek the Grand Utopia promised by Karl, Josef and others. In other words, we ignore the real fix, but we exact revenge against the gun lobby that went after dems during the last election and use the media and horrific events as tools to do it.

Saber I'm not sure that this issue is about Dems going after the Gun Lobby because of politics it's about DEAD PEOPLE, school kids, movie goers etc.

Oh and by the way you write right wing propaganda real good, I heard the soviets used to teach a course in propaganda, were you by chance an instructor for Karl/Josef and their buddies? :)

You bring up a really good point about the nut jobs getting emboldened... the biggest fear after Newtown was a "copycat" shooter looking for their way to whatever sick way they define "glory" to be. Because our media is so broadly held by very few hands (read: monopolies), and we are now in a society where "if it bleeds, it leads," we just seem to keep feeding these people's twisted imaginations, tell them how people avoided getting killed so they can plan for that, and then apply tourniquets to the necks of our citizens by eliminating their rights when we really needed some very emergent, surgical interventions to stop the bleeding elsewhere. Mental health continues to be the elephant in the room -- work any homeless shelter/local food pantries to see that some of the neediest among us are totally cast out from society because we "can't deal with them."

The White House made the gun control issue a part of its platform before the shootings in Newtown. Unfortunately, this has spawned a whole group of conspiracy-theory people to believe that Newtown was caused by the White House (just as Katrina's damage was, but obviously a very different group of paranoids at play here). Either way, the NRA worked overtime against Democrats during the last election, something which is of very public record and not "right wing propaganda," and the White House payback will be as big and as bad as it can make it.

And the people who need our help will continue to be marginalized.

John, this is perfectly said. Legal gun owners are the most law abiding responsible citizens. The criminals care less about what the laws are. We have so many laws that are just not enforced.

Your right, Miss Vassilly will go berserk. She sure gets upset when you beat her arguments all the time so she sends me insults to take it out me.

Bob I haven't heard you make an argument yet, you've had a few one liners about sheep and commie liberals, you seem to think that believing in conspiracy theories makes you patriotic, you've thought that making sexist comments about women were a valid form of public discourse, you've insulted Patriot Nation with your "Patsies" comment but other than that you haven't actually added anything to the conversation. I stand behind my claim that you would need a promotion to be considered the village idiot. Now even though I disagree with many things they say, John Merrett and a few others here HAVE presented debatable points and HAVE contributed knowledge and well thought out arguments. I don't feel the upset by your behavior, just amused and sad for all the oxygen you've wasted. There is an internet term that describes you and that is TROLL.

Definition: An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

Precisely. In the imortal words of Rahm Emanual "Never let a crisis go to waste". This Administration's twisted irony of gun walking in Fast 'n Furious to domestic gun control of law abiding citizens. The underlying goal has always been the same...provoke outrage and ban firearms. Otherwise stated, kabuki theater. The most dangerous aspects of the Milquetoast-esque 23 pt Exec Order inoculating the public into thinking gun registration is a step in the right direction as well as doctors identifying households with firearms in their patient histories!.

Fix that? Nope , its too hard. They are not concerned with fixing the real problem. They want to do something easy to say " see people we made you safer" Then when there is another shooting in 2 months the answer will be " we didnt take gun laws far enough"

Sad part is passing a feel good do nothing law may make the public think they are safer, but its realy doing a diservice to make folks think they are safer when they realy are not.

Truth is , Mass already has very tough gun laws yet the homicide rate is twice that of NH.

I can't see a felon turning in their 10- or 20-round magazine for a "7" (which aren't made for the majority of semi-automatics). They will have large capacity magazines, and the public will be restricted to a number that felons and politicians can count to.

We should tie what is available to law enforcement to the public. If law enforcement is allowed 20-round magazines, so should the public. If the public is required to have no more than 7 round magazines, then so should the people who defend our politicians.

The choice is theirs.

Nice try Bob, but it's too late to save yourself, after you act the troll anyone who's been on the internet more than a minute knows that you are only trying to be disruptive. I love how you state that you Troll "with the purpose of weeding out the one person in a debate who really is just in it to just argue and not live up to the facts" well you win the Boobie Prize as I found the Troll first and the Troll with his own words proved he's the B___H, good luck being taken seriously now go back to your cave and try to think up some more conspiracy theories.

Langone was 1)Not within his own residence, 2)Not defending his own life nor threatened in any way.

He did the right thing but, as usual, people who write ANY law, cannot be expected to write perfect ones and exceptions ALWAYS arise. How the state has treated him and reacted with indifference to curing the defect in the law is despicable. Even worse is Patrick wanting to foist even more 'feel good' gun laws on us that are not going to do anything to reduce the body counts in places like Dorchester because criminals do not care about the law and will keep murdering whether they can get large cap mags or not.

Is it just me or is anyone else beginning to miss Bill Weld?

The "Castle Doctrine" in Mass law: "Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling."

So you might be okay with the criminal proceedings (if there are any), but the civil suit will be ALL OVER YOU around your perception of their intent, "reasonable means to defend" (vague enough to make any law firm giddy), etc. You might not wear cuffs or be sentenced, but in Massachusetts you could lose everything else but your freedom.

A civil suit would be difficult is the perp is dead.

"reasonable belief" - I propose that any legislator who votes for any new law that includes that phrase be automatically dismissed and a new election be called for their immediate replacement.

Isn't it interesting hat the Liberals can only be decisive when it comes to abridging another's right. Unfortunately their arguments are founded in emotion and politics, rarely logic. The gun control debates are no exception. Liberals argue and rationale day long on semi-automatic weapons and haven't a clue of what they're talking about. As with political correctness, the central tenant is, "if I don't call our your bad behavior, I won't call out yours...let's all be friends". Guns are scary to them, therefore none of us ought to be able to have one. The SCOTUS has roundly rejected any law that would "infringe" on a citizen's right to own and bear arms.

I agree. As long as certain segments of population are "protected" from background check, it makes no sense to me that stable, law abiding citizens are required to register the sale of either firearms or ammunition. the nutcakes and bad guys don't. It's obvious the intent to do so is merely to provide a database identifying firearm owners, types/number of firearms they own and inventory of ammunition. That's what will make the confiscation easy. America, wake up! These liberal activists have nationalized banking, housing, healthcare and are working on immigration - all to grow the ranks of their voting constituencies. In the process, our nation is crumbling. We are one election away from completely loosing our country.

Actualy John mental illness was a factor in 8 out of the last 9 shootings. Lets face it , normal people dont have the desire to wipe out a crowd of folks they dont even know.
Problem is, fixing that is more work then anyone wants to do. We are Americans we want an easy fix so we can get back to something else.

Four new crimes would be created—assault and battery by means of a firearm, assault by means of a firearm, being a felon in possession of a firearm and commission of a violent misdemeanor while in possession of a weapon

Sorry , forgot the quote

All red states with the exception of Wisconsin.