CCW in MA
Now, upon getting a permit there, you must register all weapons and get insurance.
Update: Jay says that’s required for a license to own. Ack.
Update: The bill in question is in fact a proposed law. And has been proposed yearly for a while. Bitter says it’s not even out of committee.
October 31st, 2007 at 9:04 am
Slight correction: You don’t just need a license to CCW. You need a license simply to OWN a firearm in MA.
Yes, it’s that bad.
And they honestly think that going after the law-abiding gun owners is going to do ANYTHING about crime…
Well, they don’t REALLY think it will, but it looks good in a press release…
October 31st, 2007 at 10:15 am
Further context is sorely lacking in this discussion.
First, it’s not law. It’s no where near becoming law. I’m sorry to get nit-picky Unc, but it’s an important fact.
Second, this is a bill that’s automatically filed every session. It has been since at least the late `90’s.
Third, this bill doesn’t even come close to making it to a committee vote. It never has.
Fourth, the lawmakers know that this type of insurance isn’t even available. You’d be shocked at just how rational some of the anti-gun lawmakers sponsoring the bill actually are about these things. This is one of those “feel good” introductions. Notice that the lead sponsor is also one trying to loosen restrictions on pepper spray that’s currently regulated by gun laws.
I’m not saying this could never ever pass, but it’s not likely to. If I recall correctly when I initially researched this history of this bill while working up there, I think it was done on behalf of a citizen. After that, it became one of those auto filed things so lawmakers could pretend they were trying to do something.
Sorry, no story here beyond the fact that some anti-gunners have really crazy ideas.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:03 am
Bitter,
I mentioned much of the same to the person who pointed it out to me.
I wanted to put up a notice just to let the pro-gun community see what kind of sh*t the antis have in store for us.
Imagine a solid Dem Congress and Senate with Hillary! at the helm come 2009.
{shudder}
October 31st, 2007 at 11:06 am
That tool Menino seems to be the press-release junkie who loves stirring the anti-gun pot in MA – that could be why something like this is even talked about in that state.
In NH, I walked into a gun shop on Monday, was at the range practicing with the new piece an hour later. Applied for CCW on Tuesday (paid 10 bucks), and got the license on Thursday. Amazing what a difference one little border between NH and the collectivist metropolis of MA can do for your chances of self defense.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:25 am
FFLLiberty,
Are you now saying that Tom Menino is sponsoring this legislation? Did you read what I posted before? If you have proof otherwise, please refresh my memory. I will confess that it’s been a few years since I did a full legislative history on this bill (among other topics), but I never recall seeing anything related to Menino.
If you’re just saying he’s an anti-gun person, and therefore you assume he’s behind anything anti-gun, please clarify.
Jay G.,
I don’t mean to get all nitpicky with you guys, but it’s just that of all the stuff to highlight, I would go after real threats. Or the fact that it’s taking a legislative remedy to get pepper spray out of the firearms licensing category. Having seen most of the crap that is introduced, I just think there are more relevant examples. That’s why I was so shocked when I saw this here.
Also interesting to note that since they started introducing it, they haven’t upped the amount to be insured for. I figured they would at least tie it to inflation if it’s really about covering costs.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:27 am
I tend to disagree. After all, if the real threats come to fruition, the nutty stuff becomes next on the agenda.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:47 am
I don’t think there’s any harm in highlighting it in blogs. The idea is out there, at least, among the anti-gunners, and we should know that. Now, if people were asking everyone to turn out to a rally against it, I would suggest that was getting worked up over nothing… I just don’t think a post is getting too worked up.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:50 am
There’s a valid argument in that. But I would make it more of a passing point instead of a focus. The silly helps call attention to the issue, but if you don’t back it up with the real threats, then what was the purpose?
Gee, can anyone tell I work at trying to motivate people to give a shit and act? 🙂