Moderator: Van Canna
Micro-Stamping Legislation Introduced in Massachusetts
Friday, February 25, 2011
House Bill 1561, micro-stamping legislation, is pending in the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security.
Introduced by F-rated state Representative David Paul Linsky (D-5th Middlesex), H01561 would require that semi-automatic firearms manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer in the state of Massachusetts be capable of micro-stamping ammunition and establish fines for violations of this requirement.
Micro-stamping is an unproven technology that would require unique identifying information from the firearm, including the make, model, and serial number to be etched into the firing pin and breech face in such a manner that those identifiers are imprinted on the cartridge case upon firing. The technology can easily be defeated with common household tools, has no public safety value, and adds substantially to the cost of the firearm.
If passed, the availability of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns in Massachusetts could be in jeopardy, as manufacturers simply may choose not to build or sell firearms for purchase in the state. In fact, this bill would likely create a de facto ban on new semi-automatic firearms.
A hearing date has not been set for H01561 and the NRA will keep you posted on the status of this anti-gun legislation. In the meantime, please contact your state Representative urge him or her to oppose H01561. For contact information or help identifying your state Representative click here.
Van Canna wrote:Can't understand why the local chief should have the sole power of decision....what can the voters do to change this idiocy?
Van Canna wrote:Well, one way to handle those red towns might be to bring suit against the chief and the town as it was done by a friend of mine in Sharon.
Expensive but worth it for him out of principle. Also it cost the town big $ to hire a defense counsel for the town/chief.
I attended the hearing before the judge.
Judge ruled in favor of my friend citing the constitution...thus creating a precedence...Goal was very happy.
How do you see this victory impacting on future applicants?
Will licenses still be denied by the chief?
The feedback that I've heard is that many Chiefs who are being challenged on such denials are changing their tactics. What I've heard is that they're starting to issue LTCs, but are trying to issue Class "B" and/or are severely limiting/restricting them... such as "for sport and target use only".
Chiefs have stopped denying outright, but are using restrictions or other tactics to get their way. The courts have thrown out cases saying that having a restriction is not a denial of 2nd A rights, so too bad.
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 3 guests