Proposed Airgun Ban Massachusetts

That's not what I read, unless I missed something. 2040 is a ban or replica firearms the look like firearms, air guns, bb guns etc... Did I miss part of the bill?

Stoti

The guns we are interested in would not be affected because they are “ real”. However it should be clarified

The air soft and toys are what they are after as I read it 

I agree with Stoti.

I read through the bill proposal several times. I do not believe Massachesettes is trying to ban air guns. 

The presenter of the bill does not define the 'problem statement' such that we know what problem they are trying to address. It talks about "imitation" guns or "replicas;" but the proposed language specifically does not state banning " use and/or ownership" of air guns, BB guns, rifles, etc. It does identify "imitation or replicas," which I think is getting at companies that manufacture fake or toy guns that look very similar in appearance to "real" guns. i.e., " in other words, the replicas must comply and be a certain color and have a vertical stripe painted the length of the barrel." I'm guessing so LEO or Alphabet org doesn't accidentally mistake the public carrying these 'fake' guns in public and they can be mistaken for "real" guns. Again, I think the intent or problem was not defined in the link you provided, so the reader is left guessing at why this is being proposed. 

In any case, I'm not doubting what Mass may/ may not be trying to do in some "other" legislation, but this legislation is clear to me. They are not trying to ban air guns, the way I read it.

beware of ANY legislation introduced by ANY legislature. many legislators deliberately use language to deceive in order to get what they want; all encompassing terms like: "Destructive device(s)"...that can mean ANYTHING they wish it to be!

it's very important to head off legislation that may be harmful to your cause; once passed into law, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have it rescinded.

Ok, starting to formulate a clearer picture of the author’s proposal based on your clarification. It appears that the hearing next week on the 28th is where this topic will be discussed. I will be curious to know the outcome but I don’t think this will be successful.

Just a personal observation: With regard to everything going on in the country with concern over guns and mass shootings, I think the states and federal legislatures have higher priorities and bigger fish to fry. That said, I hope the bill fails.

I will be following this post.

As George Carlin said, "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups". I know nothing about this bill, as I live in NC. But the risk with ineffective bills is, if they can get it passed, the supporters can claim a success for gun control, and they build reality on false perceptions. As frustrating as I find NRA politics, I've come to believe that almost any gun control bill needs to be opposed, because it becomes a small step towards a bigger goal. Most of the ardent gun control folks have learned that extreme legislation is a non-starter, so they support anything that seems headed in the right (left) direction. One would hope that clear-thinking adults could have constructive conversation about the real issues in addressing violent crime, but the real issues are numerous, expensive, and too difficult for most politicians to tackle. So, the Carlin doctrine prevails. 

beware of ANY legislation introduced by ANY legislature. many legislators deliberately use language to deceive in order to get what they want; all encompassing terms like: "Destructive device(s)"...that can mean ANYTHING they wish it to be!

it's very important to head off legislation that may be harmful to your cause; once passed into law, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have it rescinded.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%. Given past performance of congress on aca. Wording of a bill as passed does not matter. What matters is finding a sympathetic court that agrees that the actual wording of legislation means what you want the wording to be interpreted as. A fine becomes a tax.

Look at the number of replica bb/pellet pistols and rifles at PA or Airgun Depot. Do a google search on "airguns" and you don't see results for Red Ryder's you see lots of stuff that looks like real firearms..some even with silencers .

If you think they're after your airguns, then they probably are. Paranoid? IDK. Maybe.

You have all convinced me! 

Instead of watching the the final round of the FEDx cup this afternoon, I decided to ‘hide’ my air guns and Anschutz 64 MPR!

Just in case!!

Somehow I knew we could depend on Massachusetts to be involved in trying to ban something.

As George Carlin said, "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups". I know nothing about this bill, as I live in NC. But the risk with ineffective bills is, if they can get it passed, the supporters can claim a success for gun control, and they build reality on false perceptions. As frustrating as I find NRA politics, I've come to believe that almost any gun control bill needs to be opposed, because it becomes a small step towards a bigger goal. Most of the ardent gun control folks have learned that extreme legislation is a non-starter, so they support anything that seems headed in the right (left) direction. One would hope that clear-thinking adults could have constructive conversation about the real issues in addressing violent crime, but the real issues are numerous, expensive, and too difficult for most politicians to tackle. So, the Carlin doctrine prevails.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. I'm a long term NRA member and I do get frustrated with them sometimes as well. But there really seems to be no effective alternative if you support the second amendment. Personally, I wouldn't be concerned with the concept of more stringent background checks in concept but like you I believe it would be simply the camel's nose under the tent, as the old saying goes, for those on the left. Many, if not most of them, have expressed their belief that disarming the population is a desirable thing. In addition, I don't believe any additional background checks would NECESSARILY impact the problem. It might catch a few issues but would probably not catch even most of them. To me, the biggest problem is with the demographics. Large voting blocks of gun owning/military experienced persons are aging and passing away. Seems they are being replaced by people with lower rates of gun ownership and less military experience. Might not bode well for the future. All JMO of course.

The firearm laws in this state are worded so ambiguously it’s a crapshoot on how they will be interpreted and enforced.

If I drill a hole in a potato and stick it over my Marlin’s barrel and then fire it, I am a felon according to the law.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xBdpINm9UBU

beware of ANY legislation introduced by ANY legislature. many legislators deliberately use language to deceive in order to get what they want; all encompassing terms like: "Destructive device(s)"…that can mean ANYTHING they wish it to be!

it's very important to head off legislation that may be harmful to your cause; once passed into law, it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have it rescinded.

Click to expand...

The Devil Is Always In The Details !

Given then an inch they take a mile.

Don't trust a politician or lawyer because they will always "reinterpret" the law to suit any situation they deem necessary.

Couldn't agree more. I'm a long term NRA member and I do get frustrated with them sometimes as well. But there really seems to be no effective alternative if you support the second amendment. Personally, I wouldn't be concerned with the concept of more stringent background checks in concept but like you I believe it would be simply the camel's nose under the tent, as the old saying goes, for those on the left. Many, if not most of them, have expressed their belief that disarming the population is a desirable thing. In addition, I don't believe any additional background checks would NECESSARILY impact the problem. It might catch a few issues but would probably not catch even most of them. To me, the biggest problem is with the demographics. Large voting blocks of gun owning/military experienced persons are aging and passing away. Seems they are being replaced by people with lower rates of gun ownership and less military experience. Might not bode well for the future. All JMO of course.

Click to expand...

Laws are written for two people or groups that either don't obey them or they don't pertain/immune to them.

Those two people and or groups of people are the Politicians(White Collar Criminals) and Career Criminals(No Collar Criminals).

OP

what was the result of the hearing on August the 28th?

Did the bill pass or not?

Thanks

I know this is slightly off subject but still pertinent here. I just read an article about an Australian Government "Crackdown on Illegal Firearms" and on the cover picture they showed was a PCP with a night vision scope and moderator, along with several other modertors NIB. I was wondering if PCPs are considered "firearms" Down Under, and are heavily regulated, or did they just choose to use the PCP because it looked more ominous than anything else they STOLE.